{"id":40524,"date":"1986-11-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1986-11-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-mathal-verghese-ors-on-19-november-1986"},"modified":"2017-08-05T23:55:12","modified_gmt":"2017-08-05T18:25:12","slug":"state-of-kerala-vs-mathal-verghese-ors-on-19-november-1986","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-mathal-verghese-ors-on-19-november-1986","title":{"rendered":"State Of Kerala vs Mathal Verghese & Ors on 19 November, 1986"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of Kerala vs Mathal Verghese & Ors on 19 November, 1986<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1987 AIR 33, \t\t 1987 SCR (1) 317<\/div>\n
Author: M Thakkar<\/div>\n
Bench: Thakkar, M.P. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSTATE OF KERALA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nMATHAl VERGHESE & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT19\/11\/1986\n\nBENCH:\nTHAKKAR, M.P. (J)\nBENCH:\nTHAKKAR, M.P. (J)\nNATRAJAN, S. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1987 AIR   33\t\t  1987 SCR  (1) 317\n 1986 SCC  (4) 746\t  JT 1986   928\n 1986 SCALE  (2)851\n\n\nACT:\n    Indian Penal Code, ss. 489A to 489E--Whether  applicable\nto  \"currency  notes\"  other  than  \"Indian  Currency  Notes\n\"---Counterfeiting  of or possession of\t counterfeit  dollar\nbills or dollar notes-- Whether offence under Indian Law.\n    Indian  Paper  Currency Act\t 1822,\ts.2--'Currency\tNote\n'--Definition-Whether  can be imported into ss.\t 489A--489E,\nI.P.C.\nWords & Phrases--'Currency note '--Meaning of..\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    The\t respondents were charged with\toffences  punishable\nunder s. 120B, 489A, 489C and s420 read with ss. 511 and  34\nIPC for forging and counterfeiting American dollar notes  of\n20  dollar  denomination, by printing 2000 such\t notes.\t Re-\nspondents  1  and  2 were further alleged to  have  been  in\npossession of 148 forged currency notes knowing the same  to\nbe forged, with intent to use these forged notes as genuine.\n    The\t accused-respondents contended before  the  Sessions\nCourt that a charge under s. 489A and 489C of the IPC  could\nbe  lawfully levelled only in the case of counterfeiting  of\n'Indian' currency notes and not in the case of\tcounterfeit-\ning  of 'foreign' currency notes. The Sessions Court  upheld\nthe aforesaid contention and discharged the accused-respond-\nents.  The High Court also confirmed the aforesaid order  of\ndischarge.\n    Allowing the appeal by appellant-State and remanding the\ncase to the trial court,\n    HELD:  1. The High Court was wrong in holding  that\t ss.\n489A to 489E are not applicable to currency notes other than\nIndian currency notes and that counterfeiting of or possess-\ning  of counterfeit dollar bills or dollar notes is  not  an\noffence\t under the Indian Law. Therefore, the  judgment\t and\norder  of discharge rendered by the High Court are  reversed\nand  set  aside. The matter will now go back  to  the  trial\ncourt  for proceeding further in accordance with  law.\t[325\nF-326 C]\n2.1 An analysis of s. 489A reveals that: (i)  counterfeiting\n'any' currency\n318\nnote  or bank-note is an offence;  (ii)knowingly  performing\nany part of the process of counterfeiting any currency\tnote\nor  bank-note is also an offence; and (iii) the\t prohibition\nagainst counterfeiting or performing such process applies to\ncurrency  notes\t as  also to bank-notes as  defined  by\t the\nexplanation  to s. 489A. And inasmuch as the  aforesaid\t ex-\npression  interalia means any engagement for the payment  of\nmoney to the bearer issued by or under the authority of\t any\nState or Sovereign power provided it is intended to be\tused\nas  equivalent\tto or substitute for money  the\t prohibition\nalso extends to counterfeiting etc. of currency notes of any\nother sovereign power. [321 D-G]\n    2.2\t The  expression 'currency note' under\ts.  489A  is\nlarge enough in its amplitude to cover the currency notes of\n'any'  country. When the legislature does not speak of\tcur-\nrency  notes  of India the court interpreting  the  relevant\nprovision  of law cannot substitute the\t expression  'Indian\ncurrency  note' in place of the expression 'currency  note'.\nWhen  the expression 'currency note' is interpreted to\tmean\nonly  'Indian currency note; the width of the expression  is\nbeing narrowed down or cut down. [322 A-C]\n    2.3\t The  court  can merely interpret  the\tsection,  it\ncannot\tre-write, recast or redesign the section. In  inter-\npreting\t the provision the exercise undertaken by the  court\nis  to make explicit the intention of the legislature  which\nenacted the legislature. It is not for the court to  reframe\nthe legislation for the very good reason that the powers  to\n'legislate'  have not been conferred on the court. When\t the\ncourt shrinks the content of the expression 'currency note',\nto  make it referable to only 'Indian currency note', it  is\ndefeating  the intention of the legislature partly  inasmuch\nas the court makes it lawful to counterfeit notes other than\nIndian currency notes. The manifest purpose of the provision\nis that the citizens should be protected from being deceived\nor  cheated.  The citizens deal with and  transact  business\nwith each other through the medium of currency. It is incon-\nceivable  why the legislature should be anxious\t to  protect\ncitizens  from being deceived or cheated only in respect  of\nIndian\tcurrency notes and not in respect of currency  notes\nissued by other sovereign powers. [322 B--322 F]\n    2.4\t To read the expression 'any currency note' to\tmean\nand  refer only to 'Indian currency note'is to\tmisread\t the\nexpression  by doing violence both to the letter and  spirit\nthereof unmindful of the fact that the former expression  in\nits  plentitude covers the currency notes issued by any\t and\nevery country of the world whereas the latter is  applicable\nto only one of the countries in the world. [325 D]\n    3.\tThe expression 'bank note' employed in ss.  489A  to\n489E of IPC takes within  its sweep  an engagement  for\t the\npayment of money issued by or under\n319\nthe authority of any State or Sovereign power as is  evident\nfrom  the  analysis of s. 489A. It would therefore  cover  a\ndollar bill or dollar note as well. A dollar bill issued  by\nthe  Soveriegn Government of United States of America  would\nipsofacto  be covered by the expression 'banknote'.  And  as\nrevealed by the analysis made earlier, the prohibition would\napply  to  the\tcounterfeiting of a Bank-note  or  being  in\npossession  of\ta counterfeit Bank-note as well.  It  would,\ntherefore,  in\tany  case, be an offence  tO  counterfeit  a\ndollar\tbill or to be in possession of a counterfeit  dollar\nbill. [323 C-D]\n    4. The definition contained in s. 2 of the Indian  Paper\nCurrency Act is only for the purpose of that particular\t Act\nand it cannot be imported into s. 489A to 489E of the Indian\nPenal Code. [325 E]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CRIMINAL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 26  of
\n1978<\/span>
\n    From  the  Judgement and Order dated 17.11.1976  of\t the
\nKerala\tHigh Court in Criminal Revision Petition No. 263  of
\n1975.\n<\/p>\n
Chettur Sankaran Nair and E.M.S. Anam for the Appellant.
\nNemo for the Respondents.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     THAKKAR,  J. Counterfeiters all over the world must  be
\nsinging\t in  ecstasy: “if there is heaven on  earth,  it  is
\nhere, here, here’, for, according to the KeraLa High Court1,
\nIndian law does not make counterfeiting of currency notes of
\nany  country  in  the world, other than that  of  India,  an
\noffence.\n<\/p>\n
     The  High\tCourt has persuaded itself by a\t process  of
\njudicial  activism  in\treverse gear, that  making  of\tsuch
\ncounterfeit  notes is not an offence under Section  489A  of
\nthe Indian an Penal Code (I.P.C.) and that having in posses-
\nsion such counterfeit currency notes is not an offence under
\nSection\t 489C of the I.P.C. Such a view has been taken\teven
\nthough there is nothing in the language of these sections to
\nwarrant\t Such  an  interpretation  as  will  become  evident
\npresently.\n<\/p>\n
 1. Judgment and Order rendered by the Kerala High Court  in
\nCr.R.P. 263 of 1975 on November 17, 1976, giving rise to the
\npresent\t appeal\t by  certificate of  fitness  under  Article
\n134(1)(c) of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
320<\/span><\/p>\n
    Facts:  The\t six respondents herein\t were  charged\twith
\noffences  punishable  under Sections 120B,  489A,  489B\t and
\nSection 420 read with Sections 511 and 34 IPC. The  prosecu-
\ntion case against them was that in furtherance of a conspir-
\nacy  entered into by accused nos. 1 to 4 to forge and  coun-
\nterfeit\t American  dollar notes of 20  dollar  denomination,
\nthey indulged in counterfeiting by printing 2000 such notes.
\nRespondents  1\tand 2 were further alleged to have  been  in
\npossession of 148 forged currency notes knowing the same  to
\nbe forged, with intent to use these forged notes as genuine.
\nThe  respondents were committed by the Magistrate  to  stand
\ntheir  trial before the Sessions Court, for offences,  under
\nSections 120-B, 487A and 489C read with Sections 511 and  34
\nIPC. It was contended by the respondents-accused before\t the
\nSessions Court that a charge under Sections 489A and 489C of
\nthe  IPC  could\t be lawfully levelled only in  the  case  of
\ncounterfeiting of’Indian’ currency notes and not in the case
\nof  counterfeiting of ‘foreign’ currency notes. The  conten-
\ntion  was upheld by the Sessions Court at the  threshold  of
\nthe trial and the accused were discharged. Aggrieved by\t the
\norder of the Sessions Court discharging the respondents, the
\npetitioner  (State  of\tKerala) filed  a  Revision  Petition
\nbefore the High Court of Kerala. The High Court by its order
\nunder  appeal confirmed the order of discharge\trendered  by
\nthe Sessions Court holding that “in the absence of an expla-
\nnation\tsimilar to that in the case of bank  notes;  Section
\n489A  and the Sections that follow which relate to  counter-
\nfeiting of currency notes do not apply to cases of  counter-
\nfeiting of dollar bills.” The petitioner thereupon filed  an
\napplication under Article 134 (1)(c) of the Constitution  of
\nIndia for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. By its order
\nunder appeal, the High Court certified it as a fit case\t for
\nappeal to the Supreme Court as “the case involves considera-
\nbly  important\tquestions of law as to\twhether\t counterfeit
\nAmerican  dollar notes will fall within the purview of\tSec-
\ntions  489A and 489C of the Indian Penal Code.” That is\t how
\nthe matter has come up before this Court.\n<\/p>\n
    Relevant provisions:–The anatomy of the relevant provi-
\nsions  requires to be X-rayed at the outset.  The  concerned
\nprovisions may therefore be screened:-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “489A.  Whoever  counterfeits,  or   knowingly
\n\t      performs\tany part of the process of  counter-
\n\t      feiting, any currency note or ank note,  shall
\n\t      be  punished with (imprisonment for life),  or
\n\t      with imprisonment of either description for  a
\n\t      term which may extend to ten years, and  shall
\n\t      be liable to fine.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t Explanation:– For the purposes  of
\n\t      this  section  and of sections  489B,  4(489C,
\n\t      489D  and\t 489E) the  expression\t“bank
\n\t      note”  means a promissory note  or  engagement
\n\t      for the payment
\n\t      321<\/span>
\n\t      of  money\t to bearer on demand issued  by\t any
\n\t      person carrying on the business of banking  in
\n\t      any  part of the world, or issued by or  under
\n\t      the authority of any State or Sovereign Power,
\n\t      and  intended to be used as equivalent to,  or
\n\t      as a substitute for money.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      3.  Subs. by Act 26 of 1955, s. 117  and\tsch.
\n\t      for  “transportation for life” (w.  e.f.\t1-1-
\n\t      1956).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      4.  Subs. by Act 35 of 1950, s. 3\t and  Sch.II
\n\t      for “489C and 489D”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      “489C.  Whoever  has  in\this  possession\t any
\n\t      forged  or counterfeit currency-note or  bank-
\n\t      note, knowing or having reason to believe\t the
\n\t      same to be forged or counterfeit and intending
\n\t      to  use the same as genuine or that it may  be
\n\t      used  as genuine, shall be punished  with\t im-
\n\t      prisonment  of either description for  a\tterm
\n\t      which may extend to seven years, or with fine,
\n\t      or with both.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Analysis: An analysis of Section 489A  reveals
\n\t      that:–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t(i)  counterfeiting  ‘any’  currency
\n\t      note or bank-note is an offence;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t(ii)  knowingly performing any\tpart
\n\t      of the process of counterfeiting any  currency
\n\t      note or bank-note is also an offence; and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t(iii) the prohibition against  coun-
\n\t      terfeiting or performing such process  applies
\n\t      to  currency  notes as also to  bank-notes  as
\n\t      defined  by the explanation to  Section  489A.
\n\t      And  inasmuch  as\t the  aforesaid\t  expression
\n\t      interalia\t means any engagement1 for the\tpay-
\n\t      ment of money to the bearer issued by or under
\n\t      the authority of any State or Sovereign  power
\n\t      provided it is intended to be used as  equiva-
\n\t      lent  to or substitute for money the  prohibi-
\n\t      tion  also extends to counterfeiting  etc.  of
\n\t      currency notes of any other sovereign power.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Outcome: This analysis reveals that the legislative  embargo
\nagainst\t counterfeiting envelops and takes within its  sweep
\n‘currency  notes’ of all countries. The embargo is  not\t re-
\nstricted  to ‘Indian’ currency notes. The legislature  could
\nhave, but has not, employed the expression ‘Indian currency\n<\/p>\n
1. A promise, obligation or other condition that binds. (See
\nCollins Dictionary)
\n322<\/span>
\nnote’. If the legislative intent was to restrict the parame-
\nters of prohibition to ‘Indian currency’ only, the  legisla-
\nture  could  have said so  unhesitatingly.  The’  expression
\n‘currency  note’ is large enough in its amplitude  to  cover
\nthe  currency notes of ‘any’ country. When  the\t legislature
\ndoes  not speak of currency notes of India the Court  inter-
\npreting the relevant provision of law cannot substitute\t the
\nexpression ‘Indian currency note’ in place of the expression
\n‘currency note’ as has been done by the High Court. The High
\nCourt  cannot do so for, the Court can merely interpret\t the
\nsection; it cannot re-write, recast or redesign the section.
\nIn interpreting the provision the exercise undertaken by the
\nCourt  is to make explicit the intention of the\t legislature
\nwhich  enacted the legislation. In is not for the  Court  to
\nreframe\t the legislation for the very good reason  that\t the
\npowers to ‘legislate’ have not been conferred on the  Court.
\nWhen  the expression ‘currency note’ is interpreted to\tmean
\n‘Indian currency note’, the width of the expression is being
\nnarrowed  down\tor cut down. Apart from the  fact  that\t the
\nCourt  does not possess any such power, what is the  purpose
\nto  be achieved by doing so? A Court can make  a  purposeful
\ninterpretation\tso  as to ‘effectuate’the intention  of\t the
\nlegislature  and not a purposeless one in order to  ‘defeat-
\n‘the  intention of the legislators wholly or in\t part.\tWhen
\nthe Court (apparently in the course of an exercise in inter-
\npretation)  shrinks the content of the expression  ‘currency
\nnote;  to make it referable to only ‘Indian currency  note’,
\nit  is\tdefeating the intention of  the\t legislature  partly
\ninasmuch  as the Court makes it lawful to counterfeit  notes
\nother  than Indian currency notes. The manifest\t purpose  of
\nthe provision is that the citizens should be protected\tfrom
\nbeing deceived or cheated. The citizens deal with and trans-
\nact   business\twith  each  other  through  the\t medium\t  of
\ncurrency1,  (which expression includes coins as\t also  paper
\ncurrency that is to say currency notes). It is inconceivable
\nwhy  the legislature should be anxious to  protect  citizens
\nfrom  being  deceived or cheated only in respect  of  Indian
\ncurrency  notes and not in respect of currency notes  issued
\nby  other sovereign powers. The purpose of  the\t legislation
\nappears\t to be to ensure that a person accepting a  currency
\nnote is given a genuine currency which can be exchanged\t for
\ngoods  or services and not a worthless piece of paper  which
\nwill bring him nothing in return, it being a counterfeit  or
\na forged currency note. Would the legislature in its  wisdom
\nand  anxiety to protect the unwary citizens extend  immunity
\nfrom being cheated in relation to Indian currency notes\t but
\nshow  total  unconcern in regard to their being\t cheated  in
\nrespect\t of  currency notes issued by any foreign  State  or
\nsovereign power?. In the modern age a tourist from a foreign
\ncountry\t may bring from his own country into India  currency
\nto the extent permissible under the law in India. So also he
\nmay  obtain foreign currency in exchange of Indian  currency
\nwhilst in India provided he does so to the extent  permissi-
\nble by the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act,\n<\/p>\n
1.  Currency n. 1. a metal or paper medium of exchange\tthat
\nis in current use. (Collins English Dictionary).\n<\/p>\n
323<\/span><\/p>\n
1973(1)\t and operates through an authorised person(2)  known
\nas  money changer(3). Would it be reasonable to assume\tthat
\nthe legislature was totally oblivious of the need to protect
\nthem  from being deceived and defrauded? It would be  unwise
\nto  do so in the face ,of the internal evidence\t which\tpro-
\nvides  a clue to the legislative anxiety on this  score.  In
\nfact the framers of the Code were so anxious to protect\t the
\ngeneral\t public from fraudulant acts of counterfeiters\tthat
\nnot  only have they defined the word “counterfeit”  in\tvery
\nwide  terms  in the Indian Penal Code, but  they  have\talso
\nprescribed a rule of evidence in Explanation 2 so as to draw
\nan adverse presumption against the maker of the\t counterfeit
\narticle,  as  is  evident from the definition  of  the\tterm
\n“Counterfeit”  read with the Explanations in Section  28  of
\nthe Indian Penal Code(1).\n<\/p>\n
    What  is  more, the expression ‘bank note’\temployed  in
\nsections  489A to 489E of I.P.C. takes within its  sweep  an
\nengagement  for the payment of money issued by or under\t the
\nauthority of any State or Sovereign power as is evident from
\nthe  analysis of the Section made hereinabove. And it  would
\ntherefore  cover  a Dollar Bill or Dollar Note\tas  well.  A
\ndollar\tbill  issued by the Sovereign Government  of  United
\nStates of America would ipsofacto be covered by the  expres-
\nsion  ‘bank-note’.  And\t as revealed by\t the  analysis\tmade
\nearlier,  the prohibition would apply to the  counterfeiting
\nof  a  Bank-note  or being in possession  of  a\t counterfeit
\nBank-note  as well. It would, therefore, in any case, be  an
\noffence to counterfeit a dollar bill or to be in  possession
\nof counterfeit dollar bill.\n<\/p>\n
1. Section 13(1): The. Central Government may, by  notifica-
\ntion  in  the official Gazette, order that subject  to\tsuch
\nexemption, if any, as may be specified in the  notification,
\nno  person shall except with the general or special  permis-
\nsion of the Reserve Bank and on payment of the fee, if\tany,
\nprescribed,  bring or send into India any gold or silver  or
\nany  foreign exchange or any Indian  currency.\tExplanation:
\nFor the purposes of this sub-section, the bringing or  send-
\ning  into any port or place in India of any such article  as
\naforesaid  intended to be taken out of India  without  being
\nremoved\t from  the ship or conveyance in which it  is  being
\ncarried shall nonetheless be deemed to be a bringing, or, as
\nthe  case any gold or silver or any foreign exchange or\t any
\nIndian currency. (2)No person shall, except with the general
\nor  special  permission of the Reserve Bank or\tthe  written
\npermission  of\ta person authorised in this  behalf  by\t the
\nReserve Bank, take or send out of India any gold,  jewellery
\nor  precious stones or Indian currency or  foreign  exchange
\nother  than foreign exchange obtained by him from an  autho-
\nrised dealer or from a money-changer.\n<\/p>\n
2.  Sec. 6(1). The Reserve Bank may, on an application\tmade
\nto  it in this behalf, anthorise any person to deal in\tfor-
\neign exchange.\n<\/p>\n
 (2) An authorisation under this Section shall be in writing
\nand-\n<\/p>\n
     (i) may authorise dealings in all foreign currencies or
\nmay  be\t restricted  to authorising  dealings  in  specified
\nforeign currencies only;\n<\/p>\n
     (ii) may authorise transactions of all descriptions  in
\nforeign\t currencies  or\t may be\t restricted  to\t authorising
\nspecified transactions only;\n<\/p>\n
     (iii)  may be granted to be effective for\ta  specified
\nperiod, or within specified amounts;\n<\/p>\n
     (iv)  may be granted subject to such conditions as\t may
\nbe specified therein.\n<\/p>\n
(3)  Any authorisation granted under sub-section (1) may  be
\nrevoked by the Reserve Bank at any time if the Reserve\tBank
\nis satisfied that–\n<\/p>\n
324<\/span><\/p>\n
(foot note contd.)\n<\/p>\n
     (i) it is in the public interest to do so; or\n<\/p>\n
     (ii)  the authorised dealer has-not complied  with\t the
\nconditions subject to which the authorisation was granted or
\nhas contravened any of the provisions of this Act or of\t any
\nrule, notification, direction or order made thereunder:.\n<\/p>\n
     Provided that no such authorisation shall be revoked on
\nthe  ground specified in clause (ii) unless  the  authorised
\ndealer has been given a reasonable opportunity for making  a
\nrepresentation in the matter.\n<\/p>\n
(4)  An\t authorised  dealer shall, in all  his\tdealings  in
\nforeign\t exchange and in the exercise and discharge  of\t the
\npowers\tand of the functions delegated to him under  section
\n74,  comply with such general or special directions  or\t in-
\nstructions as the Reserve Bank may, from time to time, think
\nfit to give, and except with the previous permission of\t the
\nReserve\t Bank, an authorised dealer shall not engage in\t any
\ntransaction  involving any foreign exchange which is not  in
\nconformity  with the terms of his authorisation\t under\tthis
\nsection.\n<\/p>\n
(5)  An\t authorised  dealer shall,  before  undertaking\t any
\ntransaction  in\t foreign exchange on behalf of\tany  person,
\nrequire\t that person to make such declarations and  to\tgive
\nsuch  information  as will reasonably satisfy him  that\t the
\ntransaction  will not involve, and is not designed  for\t the
\npurpose\t of, any contravention or evasion of the  provisions
\nof this Act or of any rule, notification, direction or order
\nmade thereunder, and where the said person refuses to comply
\nwith  any  such\t requirement or\t makes\tonly  unsatisfactory
\ncompliance therewith, the authorised dealer shall refuse  to
\nundertake  the\ttransaction and shall, if he has  reason  to
\nbelieve that any such contravention or evasion as  aforesaid
\nis  contemplated  by the person, report the  matter  to\t the
\nReserve Bank.\n<\/p>\n
3.  Sec. 7:(1) The Reserve Bank may, on an application\tmade
\nto  it in this behalf, authorise any person to deal in\tfor-
\neign currency.\n<\/p>\n
 (2) An authorisation under this section shall be in writing
\nand-\n<\/p>\n
     (i) may authorise dealings in all foreign currencies or
\nmay  be\t restricted  to authorising  dealings  in  specified
\ncurrencies only;\n<\/p>\n
     (ii) may authorise transactions of all descriptions  in
\nforeign\t currencies  or\t may be\t restricted  to\t authorising
\nspecified transactions only;\n<\/p>\n
     (iii) may be granted with respect to a particular place
\nwhere alone the money-changer shall carry on his business;\n<\/p>\n
     (iv)  may\tbe granted to be effective for\ta  specified
\nperiod, or within specified amounts;\n<\/p>\n
     (v) may be granted subject to such conditions as may be
\nspecified therein.\n<\/p>\n
(3)  Any authorisation granted under sub-section (1) may  be
\nrevoked by the Reserve Bank at\tany time if the Reserve Bank
\nis satisfied that:-\n<\/p>\n
     (i) it is in the public interest to do so; or\n<\/p>\n
     (ii) the money-changer has not complied with the condi-
\ntions subject to which the authorisation was granted or\t has
\ncontravened  any  of the provisions of this Act\t or  of\t any
\nrule, notification, direction or order made thereunder.
\nProvided that no such authorisation shall be revoked on\t the
\nground specified in clause (ii) unless the money-changer has
\nbeen given a reasonable opportunity for making a representa-
\ntion in the matter.\n<\/p>\n
(4) The provisions of sub-sections (4) and (5)’of Section  6
\nshall,\tin so far as they are applicable, apply in  relation
\nto  a money-changer as they apply in relation to  an  autho-
\nrised dealer,
\n(5)  Explanation–In  this section,  “foreign  money”  means
\nforeign currency in the form of notes, coins or\t travellers’
\ncheques\t and “dealing” means purchasing foreign currency  in
\nthe. form of notes, coins or traveller’s cheques or  selling
\nforeign currency in the form of notes or coins.\n<\/p>\n
325<\/span><\/p>\n
    Why\t then  construe the expression\t‘currency  note’  as
\nbeing applicable only to an Indian currency note and not  to
\na foreign currency note like a dollar bill? There is neither
\nany  compulsion\t of law nor of logic for  indulging  in\t the
\nexercise  undertaken by the High Court which in the  opening
\npart  of  the  judgment has been adverted  to  as  ‘judicial
\nactivism in reverse gear’. Nor was any ideal to be attain by
\ndoing  so.  Why then stretch the unstretchable?\t It  appears
\nthat the High Court lost its way whilst groping in the\tdark
\nby  a possibly misconceived and ill-founded argument1  built
\non  the circumstance that whilst the explanation to  Section
\n489A  in terms refers to a bank note issued ‘under  the\t au-
\nthority of any State or sovereign power’ similar explanation
\nis  not\t added in the context of  the  expression  ‘currency
\nnote’.\tThe  High Court overlooked the fact that  there\t was
\nneither\t any  occasion, nor any reason, nor  any  need,\t for
\ndoing  so. For, the expression ‘currency note’ as  it  stood
\nwas wide and pervasive enough to embrace the currency  notes
\nissued\tby India as also currency notes issued by any  other
\ncountry\t in the world. There was therefore no need to add  a
\nsimilar\t explanation. It would have been futile\t to  amplify
\nthat the expression ‘currency note’ which on a plain reading
\ncovers ‘all’ currency notes meant what it said. To read\t the
\nexpression ‘any currency note’ to mean and refer to  ‘Indian
\ncurrency  note’ is to misread the expression by\t doing\tvio-
\nlence both to the letter and spirit thereof unmindful of the
\nfact that the former expression in its plentitude covers the
\ncurrency notes issued by any and every country of the  world
\nwhereas\t the letter is applicable to only one of  the  coun-
\ntries  in  the world. The High Court also fell in  error  in
\nbeing  influenced  by the definition of currency  notes\t em-
\nbodied\tin the Indian Paper Currency Act (Act XX  of  1822).
\nThe  High  Court has overlooked the obvious  fact  that\t the
\ndefinition contained 1 in Section 2 of the said Act is\tonly
\nfor the purposes of that particular Act and it
\ncannot\tbe imported into Section 489A to 489E of the  Indian
\nPenal Code, as has been done by the High Court.
\n    The High Court was thus wholly wrong in exerting  itself
\nunnecessarily  and bending backwards in order to  hold\tthat
\nSections 489A to 489E are not\n<\/p>\n
1.  “28.  A person is said to “counterfeit” who\t causes\t one
\nthink to resemble another thing, intending by means of\tthat
\nresemblance  to\t practise  deception, or knowing  it  to  be
\nlikely that deception will thereby be practised.
\n\t Explanation 1 –It is not essential to counterfeit-
\ning that the imitation should be exact.\n<\/p>\n
\t Explanation  2–When a person causes one  thing  to
\nresemble  another thing, and the resemblance is such that  a
\nperson\tmight  be deceived thereby, it\tshall  be  presumed,
\nuntil the contrary is proved, that the person so causing the
\none  thing to resemble the other thing intended by means  of
\nthat  resemblance  to practise deception or knew  it  to  be
\nlikely that deception would thereby be practised.”\n<\/p>\n
1.  Says the High Court: “The omission of an explanation  in
\nSec. 489A for the expression “currency note” similar to\t the
\none for ‘hank note’ thus assumes importance. The  expression
\ncould refer only to the currency notes issued by the Govern-
\nment of India.”\n<\/p>\n
326<\/span><\/p>\n
applicable  to\tcurrency notes other  than  Indian  currency
\nnotes.\tAnd in holding that counterfeiting of or  possessing
\nof  counterfeit dollar bills or dollar notes is not  an\t of-
\nfence under the Indian law, thereby issuing a carte  blanche
\nto the counterfeiters of the world to establish their  head-
\nquarters within the State of Kerala with a view to carry  on
\ntheir activities with impunity under the umbrella unwitting-
\nly opened for them by the judgment of the High Court.
\n    The\t view  taken by the High Court\tis  thus  thoroughly
\nunsustainable. The judgment and order of discharge  rendered
\nby the High Court are therefore reversed and set aside.\t The
\nmatter will not to go back to the trail court for proceeding
\nfurther in accordance with law in the light of the  observa-
\ntions  made  hereinabove. Appeal is accordingly\t allowed  to
\nthis extent.\n<\/p>\n
M.L.A.\t\t\t\t\t\t      Appeal\nallowed.\n1. Says the High Court:--\n<\/pre>\n
“The  expression ‘currency notes’ is Section 489A  to  489BE
\nshould\tnaturally refer to currency notes as defined in\t Act
\nXX of 1822.”\n<\/p>\n
327<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of Kerala vs Mathal Verghese & Ors on 19 November, 1986 Equivalent citations: 1987 AIR 33, 1987 SCR (1) 317 Author: M Thakkar Bench: Thakkar, M.P. (J) PETITIONER: STATE OF KERALA Vs. RESPONDENT: MATHAl VERGHESE & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT19\/11\/1986 BENCH: THAKKAR, M.P. (J) BENCH: THAKKAR, M.P. (J) NATRAJAN, S. […]<\/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-40524","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Kerala vs Mathal Verghese & Ors on 19 November, 1986 - 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-kerala-vs-mathal-verghese-ors-on-19-november-1986\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Kerala vs Mathal Verghese & Ors on 19 November, 1986 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-mathal-verghese-ors-on-19-november-1986\" \/>\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=\"1986-11-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-05T18:25:12+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=\"22 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-kerala-vs-mathal-verghese-ors-on-19-november-1986#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-kerala-vs-mathal-verghese-ors-on-19-november-1986\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Kerala vs Mathal Verghese & Ors on 19 November, 1986\",\"datePublished\":\"1986-11-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-05T18:25:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-kerala-vs-mathal-verghese-ors-on-19-november-1986\"},\"wordCount\":3506,\"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-kerala-vs-mathal-verghese-ors-on-19-november-1986#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-kerala-vs-mathal-verghese-ors-on-19-november-1986\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-kerala-vs-mathal-verghese-ors-on-19-november-1986\",\"name\":\"State Of Kerala vs Mathal Verghese & Ors on 19 November, 1986 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1986-11-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-05T18:25:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-kerala-vs-mathal-verghese-ors-on-19-november-1986#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-kerala-vs-mathal-verghese-ors-on-19-november-1986\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-kerala-vs-mathal-verghese-ors-on-19-november-1986#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Kerala vs Mathal Verghese & Ors on 19 November, 1986\"}]},{\"@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 Kerala vs Mathal Verghese & Ors on 19 November, 1986 - 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-kerala-vs-mathal-verghese-ors-on-19-november-1986","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Kerala vs Mathal Verghese & Ors on 19 November, 1986 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-mathal-verghese-ors-on-19-november-1986","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1986-11-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-05T18:25:12+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":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-mathal-verghese-ors-on-19-november-1986#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-mathal-verghese-ors-on-19-november-1986"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Kerala vs Mathal Verghese & Ors on 19 November, 1986","datePublished":"1986-11-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-05T18:25:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-mathal-verghese-ors-on-19-november-1986"},"wordCount":3506,"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-kerala-vs-mathal-verghese-ors-on-19-november-1986#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-mathal-verghese-ors-on-19-november-1986","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-mathal-verghese-ors-on-19-november-1986","name":"State Of Kerala vs Mathal Verghese & Ors on 19 November, 1986 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1986-11-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-05T18:25:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-mathal-verghese-ors-on-19-november-1986#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-mathal-verghese-ors-on-19-november-1986"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-mathal-verghese-ors-on-19-november-1986#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Kerala vs Mathal Verghese & Ors on 19 November, 1986"}]},{"@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\/40524","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=40524"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/40524\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=40524"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=40524"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=40524"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}