{"id":49811,"date":"2009-08-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-08-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baiju-vs-mathew-joseph-on-27-august-2009"},"modified":"2018-02-03T20:58:06","modified_gmt":"2018-02-03T15:28:06","slug":"baiju-vs-mathew-joseph-on-27-august-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baiju-vs-mathew-joseph-on-27-august-2009","title":{"rendered":"Baiju vs Mathew Joseph on 27 August, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Baiju vs Mathew Joseph on 27 August, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCrl.Rev.Pet.No. 2796 of 2009()\n\n\n1. BAIJU, AGED 38 YRS.,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. MATHEW JOSEPH, AGED 40 YRS.,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE STATE OF KERALA,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.ANAND\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH\n\n Dated :27\/08\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                        THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.\n              = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n                          CRL. R.P. NO.2796 of 2009\n              = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n                Dated this the 27th day of August,      2009\n\n                                 O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
                                 ————–\n<\/p>\n
\n      Notice to Respondent No.1 is dispensed with in view of the order<\/p>\n
I am proposing to pass which is not prejudicial to him.               Public<\/p>\n
Prosecutor takes notice for respondent No.2.<\/p>\n
      2.   This revision is in challenge of           judgment of learned<\/p>\n
Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-III), North Parur            in Crl. Appeal<\/p>\n
No.558 of 2007 confirming conviction and            sentence of petitioner<\/p>\n
for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable<\/p>\n
Instruments Act (for short, “the Act”).\n<\/p>\n
      3.   According to        respondent No.1, petitioner borrowed<\/p>\n
Rs.60,000\/- from him and on his demanding repayment issued Ext.P1,<\/p>\n
cheque dated 25.6.2003. That cheque was dishonoured as account<\/p>\n
was closed which is proved by Exts.P2 and P3. Service of statutory<\/p>\n
notice on petitioner is proved by Exts.P4 and P5. Respondent No.1<\/p>\n
gave evidence as P.W.1 and claimed that petitioner borrowed             the<\/p>\n
amount and issued the cheque. According to the petitioner, he had no<\/p>\n
transaction with respondent No.1.         He    denied signature in Ext.P1,<\/p>\n
cheque.   It is contended that due execution of the cheque is not<\/p>\n
proved. Respondent No.1 in his evidence as P.W1 stated that at the<\/p>\n
CRL. R.P. No.2796 of 2009<\/p>\n
                                  -: 2 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
time of borrowal petitioner had also issued a promissory note<\/p>\n
undertaking to pay the amount but that demand promissory note is not<\/p>\n
produced. According to learned counsel for petitioner, non-production<\/p>\n
of that demand promissory note is fatal. But law does not require<\/p>\n
proof of original cause of action in all cases. What is required to be<\/p>\n
pleaded and proved in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Act is<\/p>\n
the due execution of the       cheque.      Though petitioner disputed<\/p>\n
signature in Ext.P1 and examined D.W.1, Manager of drawee bank and<\/p>\n
proved Ext.D1, fact remained that dishonour of the cheque was not for<\/p>\n
the reason of dissimilarity in the signature but as account was closed.<\/p>\n
Petitioner has no satisfactory explanation as to how the cheque leaf<\/p>\n
reached the hands of respondent No.1. When the cheque is drawn on<\/p>\n
the account maintained by petitioner he ought to have taken steps to<\/p>\n
show that the signature in Ext.P1 is not of his. Petitioner did not reply<\/p>\n
to the statutory notice. There is no evidence or circumstance to show<\/p>\n
that cheque leaf happened to be in the custody of respondent No.1 in<\/p>\n
any manner otherwise than as told by him. Court below found no<\/p>\n
reason to disbelieve the evidence of respondent No.1 and found in<\/p>\n
favour of due execution of the cheque.        I do not find   reason to<\/p>\n
interfere with that finding.\n<\/p>\n
CRL. R.P. No.2796 of 2009<\/p>\n
                                  -: 3 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
      4.    Learned magistrate sentenced petitioner to undergo simple<\/p>\n
imprisonment for three       months.    Petitioner was directed to pay<\/p>\n
compensation of Rs.61,000\/- with a default sentence of simple<\/p>\n
imprisonment for forty five days.     Appellate court did not interfere<\/p>\n
with the sentence, direction for payment of compensation or the<\/p>\n
default sentence. It is contended that sentence imposed is excessive.<\/p>\n
      Learned counsel       requested four months’ time to deposit<\/p>\n
compensation in the trail court. He submitted that petitioner is out of<\/p>\n
station and it would take time for him to pay compensation and that<\/p>\n
petitioner may be permitted to pay the compensation directly to<\/p>\n
respondent No.1.      Considering the circumstances stated by counsel I<\/p>\n
am inclined to grant time till 21.12.2009. Having regard to the nature<\/p>\n
of offence      substantive sentence can be modified as simple<\/p>\n
imprisonment till rising of the court.   There is no reason to interfere<\/p>\n
with the direction for payment of compensation or the default<\/p>\n
sentence.\n<\/p>\n
      Resultantly, this revision petition is allowed in part to the<\/p>\n
following extent:\n<\/p>\n
                  (i)    Substantive sentence awarded to\n\n           the     petitioner   is   modified    as  simple\n\n           imprisonment till rising of the court.\n\nCRL. R.P. No.2796 of 2009\n\n                                  -: 4 :-<\/span>\n\n\n\n\n                   (ii)  Petitioner  is  granted   time    till\n\n            21.12.2009     to deposit compensation in the\n\n            trial court as ordered         by the learned\n\n            magistrate.\n\n                   (iii) It is made clear that    it shall be\n\n            sufficient compliance with      the direction for\n\n            deposit     of compensation if petitioner paid\n\n<\/pre>\n
            compensation to respondent No.1 through his<\/p>\n
            counsel in the trial court and respondent No.1<\/p>\n
            filed a statement in the trial court through his<\/p>\n
            counsel       acknowledging       receipt      of<\/p>\n
            compensation within the said period.\n<\/p>\n
      Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 23.12.2009       to<\/p>\n
receive the sentence.      It is made clear that it will be open to the<\/p>\n
petitioner to deposit\/pay compensation and appear in the trial court to<\/p>\n
receive the sentence on any day prior to 21.12.2009.              Until<\/p>\n
appearance as above stated,        execution of warrant if any, against<\/p>\n
petitioner will remain in abeyance.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                             THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
vsv<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Baiju vs Mathew Joseph on 27 August, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2796 of 2009() 1. BAIJU, AGED 38 YRS., … Petitioner Vs 1. MATHEW JOSEPH, AGED 40 YRS., … Respondent 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, For Petitioner :SRI.K.ANAND For Respondent : No Appearance The Hon’ble MR. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-49811","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nBaiju vs Mathew Joseph on 27 August, 2009 - 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\/baiju-vs-mathew-joseph-on-27-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Baiju vs Mathew Joseph on 27 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baiju-vs-mathew-joseph-on-27-august-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-08-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-03T15:28:06+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baiju-vs-mathew-joseph-on-27-august-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baiju-vs-mathew-joseph-on-27-august-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Baiju vs Mathew Joseph on 27 August, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-03T15:28:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baiju-vs-mathew-joseph-on-27-august-2009\"},\"wordCount\":698,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baiju-vs-mathew-joseph-on-27-august-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baiju-vs-mathew-joseph-on-27-august-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baiju-vs-mathew-joseph-on-27-august-2009\",\"name\":\"Baiju vs Mathew Joseph on 27 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-03T15:28:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baiju-vs-mathew-joseph-on-27-august-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baiju-vs-mathew-joseph-on-27-august-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baiju-vs-mathew-joseph-on-27-august-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Baiju vs Mathew Joseph on 27 August, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Baiju vs Mathew Joseph on 27 August, 2009 - 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\/baiju-vs-mathew-joseph-on-27-august-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Baiju vs Mathew Joseph on 27 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baiju-vs-mathew-joseph-on-27-august-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-08-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-03T15:28:06+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baiju-vs-mathew-joseph-on-27-august-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baiju-vs-mathew-joseph-on-27-august-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Baiju vs Mathew Joseph on 27 August, 2009","datePublished":"2009-08-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-03T15:28:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baiju-vs-mathew-joseph-on-27-august-2009"},"wordCount":698,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baiju-vs-mathew-joseph-on-27-august-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baiju-vs-mathew-joseph-on-27-august-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baiju-vs-mathew-joseph-on-27-august-2009","name":"Baiju vs Mathew Joseph on 27 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-08-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-03T15:28:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baiju-vs-mathew-joseph-on-27-august-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baiju-vs-mathew-joseph-on-27-august-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baiju-vs-mathew-joseph-on-27-august-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Baiju vs Mathew Joseph on 27 August, 2009"}]},{"@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\/49811","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=49811"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/49811\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=49811"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=49811"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=49811"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}