{"id":52330,"date":"2000-05-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-05-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-j-jayalalitha-on-9-may-2000"},"modified":"2016-05-21T22:28:07","modified_gmt":"2016-05-21T16:58:07","slug":"state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-j-jayalalitha-on-9-may-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-j-jayalalitha-on-9-may-2000","title":{"rendered":"State Of Tamil Nadu vs J. Jayalalitha on 9 May, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of Tamil Nadu vs J. Jayalalitha on 9 May, 2000<\/div>\n
Author: Thomas<\/div>\n
Bench: K.T.Thomas, R.C. Lahot<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nSpecial Leave Petition (crl.) 549  of  2000\n\n\n\nPETITIONER:\nSTATE OF TAMIL NADU\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nJ. JAYALALITHA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t09\/05\/2000\n\nBENCH:\nK.T.THOMAS & R.C. Lahot\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
THOMAS, J.\n<\/p>\n
Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
L…I…T…….T…….T…….T…….T…….T…….T..J
\n    The\t former\t Chief\tMinister  of   Tamil  Nadu  Ms.\t  J.
\nJayalalitha  was  arraigned  before the court of  a  Special
\nJudge,\tChennai, along with 10 others, depicting her as\t the
\nhub  of a cabal for knocking off a huge sum of public  money
\nto  make  vast\tpecuniary  gains at the cost  of  the  State
\nexchequer.  The Special Judge at the stage of framing charge
\nfelt  that  the materials shown to him were insufficient  to
\nframe  a  charge  against her and also against\tone  of\t her
\nformer\tcabinet\t colleagues (V.R.  Nedunchezhian).  So\tthey
\nwere  discharged by the Special Judge, but a charge has been
\nframed\t against  the  other   nine  accused  for   criminal
\nconspiracy  to\tmisappropriate\tGovernment funds  and  other
\nrelated\t offences.   The State of Tamil Nadu challenged\t the
\naforesaid order of discharge before the High Court of Madras
\nin  revision,  but a learned Single Judge did not  interfere
\nwith  the  order.  In the meanwhile V.R.  Nedunchezhian\t has
\npassed\taway.\tThis  appeal is by the Sate as\tagainst\t Ms.
\nJayalalitha  (respondent  herein) in challenge of  the\tsaid
\norder of the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t substance  of\tthe police case is that\t during\t the
\nperiod between February 1992 and October 1993, all the above
\n11  accused  and certain foreign coal suppliers had  entered
\ninto  a\t criminal conspiracy to import coal for\t Tamil\tNadu
\nElectricity   Board(hereinafter\t  referred    to   as\t the
\n`Electricity  Board’)  for  such  price as  to\tobtain\thuge
\npecuniary  advantage  to  themselves by\t causing  heavy\t and
\nwrongful  loss to the State to the tune of about 6.5  crores
\nof rupees.\n<\/p>\n
    There are three Thermal Power Stations in Tamil Nadu (at
\nEnnore,\t Mettur and Tuticorin) which generate electric power
\nby  using coal as fuel.\t The annual requirement of coal\t for
\nthose  three stations was about 12 million metric tonnes  of
\ncoal.\tAs the stock position of coal in March 1992 appeared
\ninsufficient to meet the requirement a decision was taken to
\nimport at least 2 million metric tonnes of coal from foreign
\ncountries.  The allegation is that such a decision was taken
\npursuant  to  a criminal conspiracy hatched by\tthe  accused
\npersons for obtaining huge pecuniary advantage.\t Pursuant to
\nthe decision, tenders were invited from foreign suppliers of
\ncoal.\tOn  10.3.1993, tenders were opened, but only  11  of
\nthem were found to be in order.\t However, those bidders were
\nasked  to  revise  the\tprice bid after\t adding\t three\tmore
\nparameters,  such as size, ash content and volatile  matter.
\nThe  idea  was to facilitate import of inferior\t quality  of
\ncoal  at higher price by showing favouritism to certain coal
\nsuppliers of Indonesia, according to the allegation.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t Government Secretary (PWD) raised strong objections
\nagainst the said tenders being accepted.  A company based at
\nSingapore  (M\/s.   Counter  Corporation) made  an  offer  to
\nsupply\t6 lacs metric tonnes of coal at the rate of 35.24 US
\nDollars.    But\t it  was   rejected  without  even  starting
\nnegotiation  with them.\t But the Electricity Board fixed the
\nprice  of coal at 40.20 US Dollars per metric ton and  three
\nIndonesian  bidders  were permitted to supply coal  at\tthat
\nprice.\t Subsequently M\/s.  Counter Corporation\t (Singapore)
\nwas  also  asked  to supply coal at the increased  price  of
\n40.20 US Dollars per metric ton.\n<\/p>\n
    The offences alleged against all the accused are Section
\n120-B  read with Section 409 of IPC as well as Section 13(2)
\nof the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.\n<\/p>\n
    What  persuaded the Special Judge to adopt the view that
\nmaterials  produced before him were insufficient to frame  a
\ncharge against the respondent, are briefly the following:\n<\/p>\n
    The\t strong\t objection  raised by  Government  Secretary
\n(Shri  V.  Sundaram) against the proposal to import coal  at
\nsuch  a high price would not have reached the notice of\t the
\nrespondent  because  it\t is an admitted position  that\tsome
\ncrucial\t sheets\t in the Current File were removed  and\tsuch
\nsheets\twere  later added after obtaining approval from\t the
\nChief  Minister.   Special  Judge  has\tmade  the  following
\nobservations:\t“It is not known as to how and where and  at
\nwhat  point of time the pages 223 to 226 and also the  pages
\n21   to\t  32  were  removed   from  the\t  Secretariat\tfile
\n(no.55360\/U2\/93).   This part of the file only contains\t the
\nobjections  raised by Sundaram, objections in paras 21 to 32
\nare  based on the objections already raised in pages 223  to\n<\/p>\n
246.   I  have carefully gone through the  materials  placed
\nbefore me to find out whether there is anything to show that
\nthe file was intact with the pages containing the objections
\nof  Sundaram when the file reached the table of A11 and\t A1.
\nThe pages containing the objections of Sundaram pages 223 to
\n246  and  pages 21 to 32 can be called as missing pages\t for
\nshortness.   The materials on record do not reveal how, when
\nand where the missing pages were removed and secreted.”\n<\/p>\n
The Special Judge has further observed thus:\n<\/p>\n
    “If\t the  file  in\tthe present  condition\twithout\t the
\nmissing\t pages had been submitted to A1 and A11, they  would
\nnot have been in a position to know the removal of pages and
\nsuspect foul play.  If these missing pages have been removed
\neither by 2nd or 3rd accused before sending the file to 11th
\naccused\t and 1st accused, then there might not have been any
\noccasion  for 11th and 1st accused to note the objections of
\nSundaram.”\n<\/p>\n
    Learned  Single  Judge  of the Madras High\tCourt  while
\naffirming  the\tsaid order pointed out that the entire\tcase
\nagainst\t the respondent is based on the statement of Shri V.
\nSundaram  and  another statement made by Shri  Venkataraman,
\nthe  then  Chief  Secretary  (who is arrayed  as  the  third
\naccused\t in  the charge sheet, against whom the trial  court
\nhas framed charge).  The latter statement was recorded under
\nSection\t 164  of the Code of Criminal Procedure\t (for  short
\n`the  Code’).\tRegarding the objections put forward  by  V.
\nSundaram  in the Current File, learned Single Judge  noticed
\nthat  Page Nos.\t 225 to 245 of that file remained missing at
\na  particular  point of time and the objections made  by  V.
\nSundaram  were\ton those sheets.  When there is\t nothing  to
\nshow  that  those  sheets  were removed\t at  the  behest  of
\nrespondent  Jayalalitha it must be presumed that she had not
\ncome  across  those objections, according to learned  Single
\nJudge of the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
    While  considering the possibility of those pages  being
\nsurreptitiously\t  removed  at  the   behest  of\t  respondent
\nJayalalitha learned Single Judge has stated thus:\n<\/p>\n
    “A\tmere imagination cannot be said to be a presumption.
\nThere  is  no evidence on record to show that the  file\t had
\ngone  to  the first accused and she ordered the\t removal  of
\nthose pages at the time when she signed the said file.\tWhen
\nthe  file  was sent from witness Sundaram those\t pages\twere
\nfound  in the file and thereafter, it has gone to number  of
\nofficials  and\tthe  Minister for Public Works, who  is\t the
\nsecond\taccused in this case and from him, the said file has
\ngone  to  A-11\tand finally to A-1.  The fact  of  the\tfile
\ncontaining those pages and thereafter missing of those pages
\nwhen  the file once gain reached him after the signature  of
\nthe  accused  and the fact of inserting those missing  pages
\ntogether in the file by one Easakki Muthu are also spoken to
\nby  witness  Sundaram.\t However,  there  is  absolutely  no
\nevidence as to what had happened in between.”\n<\/p>\n
    Thereafter\tlearned\t Single Judge proceeded to  consider
\nthe  statement\tattributed  to 3rd accused  Venkataraman  as
\nrecorded  under\t Section 164 of the Code and found that\t the
\nsaid  material is not capable of being converted into  legal
\nevidence later on after framing the charges.\n<\/p>\n
    We\tmay,  at the outset, point out that there is no\t use
\nwith  the  said\t statement attributed to the  third  accused
\nVenkataraman  on account of two reasons.  First is that\t the
\nsaid  author of the statement has already been arraigned  in
\nthe  case and a charge has been framed against him.   Second
\nis  that on a reading of the statement we have noticed\tthat
\nit  is exculpatory in nature.  Hence the said statement\t can
\nonly  lie  in  store and no court can possibly treat  it  as
\nevidence.\n<\/p>\n
    Shri Sushil Kumar, learned senior counsel who argued for
\nrespondent  Jaylalitha contended that if the said  statement
\nis  to\tbe kept at bay there is nothing else to connect\t the
\nrespondent  with  the  criminal\t  conspiracy  alleged.\t  He
\nsubmitted  that\t there\tis  no\tmaterial  to  indicate\tthat
\nrespondent had ever come to know of the adverse remarks made
\nby  V.\t Sundaram  in  the file\t concerned  as\tthose  notes
\nhappened  to be on those sheets which were missing from\t the
\nCurrent\t File.\t If  that be so, according  to\tthe  learned
\nsenior\tcounsel,  respondent  could only have acted  on\t the
\nrecommendations\t submitted by the departmental heads in\t the
\nNote, and on the proposals prepared by the high officials in
\nthe  bureaucracy.   No\thead of the executive  can  in\tsuch
\ncircumstances  be  asked  to answer any charge\tof  criminal
\nconspiracy, according to Shri Sushil Kumar.\n<\/p>\n
    On\tthe  other hand Shri Shanti Bhushan, learned  senior
\ncounsel\t presented  before  us\ta number  of  materials\t and
\ncircumstances  which,  according to him, are  sufficient  to
\nbring  home the guilt of the respondent.  He submitted\tthat
\nit  is for the respondent to controvert those  circumstances
\nby  participating in the trial and defend herself and if she
\nfails  in that endeavour she would end in conviction of\t the
\noffences  being the inevitable consequence thereof.  Learned
\nsenior\tcounsel\t on  that  premise  attacked  the  order  of
\ndischarge  passed  by the Special Judge and made a  forceful
\nonslaught on the order passed by the learned Single Judge of
\nthe  High Court for not correcting the mistake committed  by
\nthe Special Judge.\n<\/p>\n
    At\tthis  stage we have to proceed on a premise  that  a
\ncriminal  conspiracy  was hatched in respect of import of  2
\nmillion\t metric\t tonnes of coal during the relevant  period.
\nSuch  a\t premise can be adopted as the Special Judge,  after
\nhearing\t both sides, has decided to frame charge against the
\nother  nine accused persons presuming that there was such  a
\nconspiracy  and those nine accused have involved  themselves
\nas the conspirators therein.  Hence the only question now to
\nbe  considered\tis whether at this stage such a\t presumption
\ncan be stretched towards respondent Jayalalitha as well.\n<\/p>\n
    Chapter  II\t of  the Evidence Act – deals with  “of\t the
\nRelevancy  of  Facts.” One particular provision included  in
\nthat  Chapter  to  deal with evidence relating\tto  criminal
\nconspiracy  is\tSection 10.  It is useful to have a look  at
\nthat  section at this stage.  Therefore, we may now refer to
\nSection 10 of the Evidence Act.\n<\/p>\n
    “10.  Things said or done by conspirator in reference to
\ncommon\tdesign.- Where there is reasonable ground to believe
\nthat  two or more persons have conspired together to  commit
\nan  offence  or an actionable wrong, anything said, done  or
\nwritten\t by  any one of such persons in reference  to  their
\ncommon\tintention,  after the time when such  intention\t was
\nfirst  entertained by any one of them, is a relevant fact as
\nagainst each of the persons believed to be so conspiring, as
\nwell  for  the\tpurpose\t of proving  the  existence  of\t the
\nconspiracy  as\tfor  the purpose of showing  that  any\tsuch
\nperson was a party to it.”\n<\/p>\n
    The\t question of using anything said, done or written by
\nany  one of such conspirators would arise only if the  facts
\nwould  help  to sustain the first limb of the  section\ti.e.
\nthere  is  reasonable  ground to believe that  two  or\tmore
\npersons\t have  conspired  together  to\tcommit\tan  offence.
\nUnless\tthe  court  has\t some\tmaterials  to  believe\tthat
\nrespondent  is one of those persons referred to in the first
\nlimb  of the section, so far as the conspiracy in this\tcase
\nis  concerned, any consideration for what she had said, done
\nor  written would not be a relevant fact as against each  of
\nthe  conspirators.   Nevertheless, it is open to the  court,
\neven  at  this stage to consider the materials\trelating  to
\nwhat  an  accused  would  have said, done  or  written\twith
\nreference  to  the common intention between the accused\t for
\nthe  purpose of deciding whether there is reasonable  ground
\nto  believe that the said accused would have been one of the
\nconspirators.\tIn  State vs.  Nalini {1999 (5) SCC  253}  a
\nthree  Judge  Bench  of\t this Court  has  stated  the  legal
\nposition  thus regarding the first limb of Section 10 of the
\nEvidence Act:\n<\/p>\n
    “The first condition which is almost the opening lock of
\nthat  provision\t is the existence of `reasonable  ground  to
\nbelieve’  that\tthe  conspirators have\tconspired  together.
\nThis  condition\t will be satisfied even when there  is\tsome
\nprima  facie evidence to show that there was such a criminal
\nconspiracy.   If  the  aforesaid  preliminary  condition  is
\nfulfilled  then\t anything  said by one of  the\tconspirators
\nbecomes\t substantive  evidence against the  other,  provided
\nthat  should  have been a statement `in reference  to  their
\ncommon intention’.  Under the corresponding provision in the
\nEnglish\t law  the expression used is `in furtherance of\t the
\ncommon\tobject’.  No doubt, the words `in reference to their
\ncommon\tintention’ are wider than the words used in  English
\nlaw  {vide  Sardar  Sardul  Singh  Caveeshar  v.   State  of
\nMaharashtra (AIR<\/a> 1965 SC 682)}.”\n<\/p>\n
    So now what we have to consider is whether the materials
\nare  sufficient to show the prospect for holding that “there
\nis reasonable ground to believe” that respondent Jayalalitha
\nwould  also  have been at least one of the conspirators,  if
\nnot the kingpin of it.\n<\/p>\n
    In\tthe above context it is useful to notice the  office
\nheld  by  the other persons against whom the  Special  Court
\nframed\tthe  charge  in\t the same case for  the\t offence  of
\ncriminal  conspiracy.  They can be shown by reference to the
\nrank  allotted\tto each of them in the challan submitted  by
\nthe  police.   A-2  was\t the  Minister\tin  the\t cabinet  of
\nrespondent  Jayalalitha\t for the portfolio relating to\tPWD.
\nA-3  was  the Chief Secretary, A-4 was the Chairman  of\t the
\nElectricity  Board,  A-5  and A-6 were\tthe  Secretaries  to
\nGovernment  of\tTamil  Nadu in the  Finance  and  Industries
\ndepartments  respectively.  A-7, A-8 and A-9 were members of
\nthe Electricity Board and A-10 was the Chief Engineer of the
\nElectricity Board (Coal Wing).\n<\/p>\n
    Shri  Shanti  Bhushan submitted that the above  officers
\nwould  not  have  even\tdreamt\t of  committing\t a  criminal
\nconspiracy  for\t knocking  off such a fabulous fund  of\t the
\nTamil  Nadu  Government\t without   the\tdirect,\t active\t and
\npositive   involvement\t of  the    then   Chief   Minister,
\nparticularly  due to the peculiar set up of the\t ministerial
\nnetwork\t arranged  by the respondent herself.  For that\t the
\nfirst  circumstance which learned senior counsel highlighted
\nis  a  Government  Order issued by the State  Government  on
\n6.11.1991.   This  was issued almost soon  after  respondent
\nassumed the office of Chief Minister of the State.  The said
\nGovernment Order pointed out that there was no uniformity in
\nthe  procedure followed by the public sector undertakings in
\nthe State regarding settlement and purchase of contracts and
\ntenders,  and hence it was considered essential that  proper
\nscrutiny  is  exercised before approval of such tenders\t and
\ncontracts.  So the Government ordered that prior approval of
\nthe  Government\t should\t be obtained in respect of  all\t the
\ntenders\t and  all  the\tpurchases “where the  value  of\t the
\ncontract  exceeds  Rs.one crore”.  It was directed that\t the
\nfile  shall,  therefore,  be  circulated  to  the  concerned
\nMinister,  Minister  of Finance and the Chief  Minister\t for
\nsuch proper scrutiny and prior approval.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t next  circumstance pointed out is the D.O.   letter
\nwhich  respondent  herself  addressed  to  the\tthen   Union
\nMinister  for Coal (Shri P.A.  Sangma).\t The letter was sent
\non  8.10.1991 seeking permission to import 7 lacs tonnes  of
\ncoal from Australia.  But the Union Minister discouraged her
\nfrom  buying  coal from outside India, by pointing  out\t the
\nfollowing:\n<\/p>\n
    “As\t reported  by Coal India Ltd., these power  stations
\nhad  a coal stock of 7.95 lakh tonnes at the end of  October
\n’91 as compared to 0.44 lakh tonnes at the end of March ’91.
\nI have also been told that because of large stocks, TNEB has
\nnot  been  lifting  coal from  Paradeep,  Vishakapatnam\t and
\nHaldia Ports as per programme.\tAs such it would appear that
\nTNEB  prima-facie  does\t not   have  any  justification\t for
\nimporting  any\tcoal  for the present.\tThey would  be\twell
\nadvised to accumulate as much indigenous coal as possible so
\nthat they have comfortable stocks during this busy season.”\n<\/p>\n
    The\t respondent  did not stop there and she addressed  a
\nD.O.\tletter\tdated  30.7.1992  to  the   Prime   Minister
\nrequesting him to accord special permission to the aforesaid
\nElectricity  Board for importing one million tonnes of\tcoal
\n“as a one time measure, on an emergency basis free of import
\nduty.”\tReferring  to the said letter which  respondent\t has
\naddressed  to  the Prime Minister the Central  Minister\t for
\nCoal  wrote a reply to her on 29.9.1992, informing her\tthat
\nthe  stock  position  of  coal at the  three  Thermal  Power
\nStations  of TNEB was quite comfortable.  A chart was  given
\nby  him\t showing  the  stock at the  three  different  power
\nstations.   The\t Central  Minister   therefore\tadvised\t the
\nrespondent against import of coal.\n<\/p>\n
    It\t appears  that\tthe   respondent  was  insistent  on
\nimporting  coal\t in spite of the strong advice\tagainst\t it.
\nHowever,  even\tthose  persons who opposed such\t import\t had
\nsubsequently  yielded  to her insistence.   Nonetheless\t the
\nCentral\t Government  put a rider that such import  shall  be
\nrouted\tthrough\t Central Government.  It was in the wake  of
\nthe above materials that the next circumstance was projected
\nagainst\t the respondent as she did not agree to abide by the
\nsaid  rider  as\t well  and it was  decided  to\timport\tcoal
\ndirectly through the State and not via the Centre.\n<\/p>\n
    Shri  Shanti Bhushan invited our attention to the strong
\nlanguage  used\tby  Shri V.  Sundaram  (PWD  Secretary)\t for
\ncastigating  the  proposal  for importing coal, as  per\t his
\nletter\tdated  26.5.1993, addressed to the Chairman  of\t the
\nElectricity  Board, with copies to all members of the Board.
\nSome of the excerpts of the said letter are the following:\n<\/p>\n
    “The  question  how these two Indonesian sources,  whose
\noriginal  offers stipulated maximum C.V.  of 6000 will\tmeet
\nthe  requirements of TNEB whose minimum stipulation of\tC.V.
\nis  6000  baffles me.  ………………………  In\tfact
\nthe  specifications of these 2 Indonesian supply sources  is
\nso  divergent  from  TNEB tender specification\tin  so\tmany
\ncritical  elements that they should not merit even a cursory
\nlook as can be seen from the table below.”\n<\/p>\n
    After  giving the table in his letter Shri V.   Sundaram
\nfurther\t noted that “in fact High Moisture and High Volatile
\nmatter\talone should eliminate these two Indonesian sources.
\nI  have\t been  advised that the combination  of\t High  Total
\nMoisture and High Volatile Matter could prove to be deadly”,
\nand he concluded thus:\n<\/p>\n
    “These  are only some of the points that come to my mind
\nimmediately.   All in all, I am very uncomfortable about the
\nway  this  tender has been issued and processed.  I  have  a
\nfeeling\t of lurking uneasiness that we will one day discover
\nyet  another bloomer which might land us all in considerable
\nembarrassment,\tbesides\t involving  TNEB and  Government  in
\nprotracted  legal  wrangles  and heavy\tlosses,\t apart\tfrom
\nunseemly public controversy.”\n<\/p>\n
    On 18.6.1993, the Secretary of the Ministry of Coal, New
\nDelhi,\tsent an urgent communication to the Chairman of\t the
\nElectricity  Board  as\twell as to Shri V.   Sundaram.\t The
\nrelevant  portion of the communication reads thus:  “In view
\nof  sufficient\tstock of coal available with the Tamil\tNadu
\nPower Stations there is no justification for import of coal.
\nMoreover  the  time  limit  for import of  coal\t expires  in
\nSeptember  1993.  One cannot visualise as to how import will
\nmaterialise  within these few months.  I request any case be
\nopposed\t to  any  extension of\tconcessional  duty  facility
\nbeyond\tSeptember  1993.  I have been informed\tthat  tender
\nspecifications have been drawn in such a manner that it will
\nexclude domestic producers from bidding.  If that is true it
\nwill  be unfortunate.  Kindly appreciate that import of coal
\non  concessional  duty\thas been allowed to  give  fair\t and
\ncompetitive chance to the domestic producers also.”\n<\/p>\n
    Shri  Ramachandran,\t a  Joint Secretary  to\t Government,
\nstrongly  wrote\t against accepting the said tenders  in\t his
\nNote  dated  22.6.93.\tIt is not necessary to\textract\t the
\nwhole  Note as the same is replete with warnings against the
\nproposal.   Yet\t we  may extract only  the  barest  relevant
\nportion:\n<\/p>\n
    “It\t is  apprehended that an excess of  Rs.8,64,93,100\/-
\nhas  to\t be incurred by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board  on
\naccount of the present recommendation of the tender proposal
\nby  the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board vide Annexure 6 at page
\n39  of\tflag A.\t Further, the quality of Indonesian coal  is
\npoor and could cause fire explosion in the mill.”\n<\/p>\n
    The above note has been fully concurred by Shri Sundaram
\nby further writing the following in his note dated 23.6.93:\n<\/p>\n
    “I\thave  explained the difficulties to Minister  (PWD).
\nThe tender proposal may be returned to the Board for various
\nreasons\t like  admitting  certain firms with post  –  tender
\nclarification  and proposing allotment of quantities to them
\nbesides other infirmities.”\n<\/p>\n
    It\tis  pertinent to point out that the above  materials
\nare  included in the Current File which was submitted to the
\nrespondent.   There  is no case for the respondent that\t the
\nabove  were not in that File when she scrutinised it nor  is
\nit  anybody’s case that those warnings were included only in
\nthe  missing  sheets.  If respondent came to know  of  those
\nprompt\twarnings  and  despite them she accorded  her  green
\nsignal to import the coal, how could it be concluded at this
\npremature  stage  that\tshe  was not aware  of\tthe  serious
\nimplications of the clandestine deal on the State exchequer.\n<\/p>\n
    We\tagain repeat that at this stage we are proceeding on
\nthe  assumption\t that  there was a  criminal  conspiracy  to
\ncommit\tthe  offence  under Section 409 of IPC\tand  Section
\n30(2)  of the PC Act, because the trial court has chosen  to
\nframe  charge  against the co-accused including one  Cabinet
\nMinister who was working under the respondent.\tShri Shushil
\nKumar contended that it is not necessary that she would have
\nread   those  portions\tin   the  Notes.   Alternatively  he
\ncontended  that\t even if she had read those notes she  would
\nhave  been persuaded to grant permission on the strength  of
\nthe later note submitted in same Current File.\n<\/p>\n
    Shri  Shanti  Bhushan,  learned senior counsel,  on\t the
\nother  hand, contended that it is next to impossibility that
\nthe  Chief  Minister would have missed the above  materials,
\nparticularly when it was her Government which wanted through
\nthe G.O.  dated 6.11.1991 that all the files shall be routed
\nthrough\t the  Chief  Minister\tfor  her  “proper  scrutiny”
\nregarding   any\t venture  of   public  sector\tundertakings
\ninvolving  more than a crore of rupees.\t The said G.O.\t was
\nissued\twith the idea that without the specific scrutiny and
\nsupervision  of\t the  Chief Minister no approval  should  be
\ngranted.\n<\/p>\n
    Learned  senior  counsel further contended that  if\t the
\nChief  Minister had read the whole Note of Shri V.  Sundaram
\nit  is\tfor  her to put forth satisfactorily  that  she\t was
\nconvinced  in  spite  of  such warnings that  the  deal\t was
\ngenuine\t and  in the best interest of the State or that\t she
\nhad  discussed those points with the said Secretary and\t she
\nhad  good reasons to overrule the objections.  We find force
\nin  the\t said contention that until the\t respondent  affords
\nsatisfactory  explanation the court can presume that she was
\naware  of the serious consequences of the deal on the  State
\nexchequer  as pointed out by the said PWD Secretary.   Court
\ncan  also  presume at this stage that there  are  reasonable
\ngrounds\t to believe that she was involved in the  conspiracy
\nas envisaged in Section 10 of the Evidence Act.\n<\/p>\n
    In\tthe  written  submission presented  by\tthe  learned
\ncounsel for the respondent it is contended, inter alia, that
\nwhen the “Current File” reached respondent as Chief Minister
\nthe  relevant  sheets were missing therefrom and  hence\t she
\nacted  on  the\tlatest Note put up by the officials  of\t the
\ndepartment  which was countersigned by the same V.  Sundaram
\non  7.7.1993.  On the said premise learned counsel argued  –
\nwhy  should a conspiring Chief Minister be kept in the dark;
\nwhy  should  the  pages\t at  all be  removed  and  the\tFile
\nrenumbered if respondent was a co-conspirator?\n<\/p>\n
    Sri\t  Shanti  Bhushan  invited   our  attention  to\t the
\nstatement  recorded from Sri V.Sundaram under Section 161 of
\nthe  Code on 13.12.1996 in which there is a narrative of the
\ndetails\t of  the circumstances in which he had to initial  a
\nNote  prepared by the other departmental heads including the
\nChief  Secretary  (A3).\t The aggressive and  truculent\trole
\nattributed  to a lady by name “Sasikala” looms large in\t the
\nsaid  statement\t of  V.Sundaranm and that he  was  veritably
\nthreatened  that he would be dismembered if he would persist
\nwith  his  opposition  to the clearance of the\tproposal  to
\nimport the coal.  Learned counsel submitted that prosecution
\nwould  prove that the said Sasikala was the surrogate of the
\nrespondent  and wielded considerable influence on her during
\nthe relevant time.\n<\/p>\n
    We\twould choose to refrain from dealing with the  above
\ncontention,  lest any comment made by us may turn out to  be
\ndetrimental   to  one  or  the\t other\tside  of  the  case.
\nNevertheless,  it  is  for the prosecution  to\texplain\t how
\ncertain\t relevant  sheets  were found  missing\tand  whether
\nrespondent  had any knowledge of and also why the respondent
\nshould\thave  caused  them to be removed.  This is  not\t the
\nstage for weighing the pros and cons of all the implications
\nof  the materials nor for sifting the materials presented by
\nthe  prosecution.   The\t exercise at this  stage  should  be
\nconfined  to considering the police report and the documents
\nto  decide  whether the allegations against the accused\t are
\n“groundless”  or whether “there is ground for presuming that
\nthe accused has committed the offences.” Presumption therein
\nis  always rebuttable by the accused for which there must be
\nopportunity of participation in the trial.\n<\/p>\n
    For\t all the above reasons we have no doubt in our\tmind
\nthat  the  court would not, and should not, have  discharged
\nthe  respondent\t at this premature stage in respect  of\t the
\noffences charged against the other nine accused persons.\n<\/p>\n
    Therefore,\twe set aside the order passed by the Special
\nCourt discharging respondent J.\t Jayalalitha and that of the
\nHigh  Court  which confirmed the said order.  We direct\t the
\nSpecial\t Judge\tto proceed against the respondent as one  of
\nthe  accused  in the case.  Regarding the witnesses  already
\nexamined  by  the prosecution we permit the  prosecution  to
\ntreat  the examination-in-chief already done as part of\t the
\nevidence  recorded in this case with all the accused on\t the
\narray.\t Prosecution  can  elicit from those  witnesses\t any
\nfurther\t materials and they can be recorded as the remaining
\nportion\t  of  the   examination-in-chief.   Thereafter\t the
\nrespondent shall have full opportunity to cross-examine such
\nwitnesses  as  though  the   entire  chief  examination\t was
\nconducted  with\t her  on  the array of\tthe  accused.\tThis
\nprovision  is made by us for avoiding unnecessary delay\t and
\nrepetition  of\tre-recording the evidence already  recorded.
\nOn  completion of examination of such witnesses\t prosecution
\ncan  examine any remaining witnesses.  Thereafter, trial can
\nproceed in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
    If\trespondent Jayalalitha seeks permission to  dispense
\nwith  her  presence in the trial court it is open to her  to
\nfile  an application for the same before the Special  Judge.
\nThe Special Judge shall exempt her from personally appearing
\nafter  recording  her  plea, if she agrees to abide  by\t the
\nfollowing conditions:\n<\/p>\n
    (1)\t A  counsel  on her behalf would be present  in\t the
\ncourt whenever the case is taken up.\n<\/p>\n
    (2) She would not dispute her identity as the particular
\naccused in the case.\n<\/p>\n
    (3) She would be present on any day when her presence is
\nrequired by the court.\n<\/p>\n
    It\tis needless to say that if she fails to abide by any
\nof  the above conditions it is open to the Special Judge  to
\nrevoke the aforesaid benefit granted to her.\n<\/p>\n
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of Tamil Nadu vs J. Jayalalitha on 9 May, 2000 Author: Thomas Bench: K.T.Thomas, R.C. Lahot CASE NO.: Special Leave Petition (crl.) 549 of 2000 PETITIONER: STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. RESPONDENT: J. JAYALALITHA DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09\/05\/2000 BENCH: K.T.THOMAS & R.C. Lahot JUDGMENT: THOMAS, J. Leave granted. L…I…T…….T…….T…….T…….T…….T…….T..J The […]<\/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-52330","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Tamil Nadu vs J. Jayalalitha on 9 May, 2000 - 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-tamil-nadu-vs-j-jayalalitha-on-9-may-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Tamil Nadu vs J. Jayalalitha on 9 May, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-j-jayalalitha-on-9-may-2000\" \/>\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=\"2000-05-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-21T16:58:07+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-tamil-nadu-vs-j-jayalalitha-on-9-may-2000#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-j-jayalalitha-on-9-may-2000\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Tamil Nadu vs J. Jayalalitha on 9 May, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-05-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-21T16:58:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-j-jayalalitha-on-9-may-2000\"},\"wordCount\":4668,\"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-tamil-nadu-vs-j-jayalalitha-on-9-may-2000#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-j-jayalalitha-on-9-may-2000\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-j-jayalalitha-on-9-may-2000\",\"name\":\"State Of Tamil Nadu vs J. Jayalalitha on 9 May, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-05-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-21T16:58:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-j-jayalalitha-on-9-may-2000#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-j-jayalalitha-on-9-may-2000\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-j-jayalalitha-on-9-may-2000#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Tamil Nadu vs J. Jayalalitha on 9 May, 2000\"}]},{\"@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 Tamil Nadu vs J. Jayalalitha on 9 May, 2000 - 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-tamil-nadu-vs-j-jayalalitha-on-9-may-2000","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Tamil Nadu vs J. Jayalalitha on 9 May, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-j-jayalalitha-on-9-may-2000","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-05-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-21T16:58:07+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-tamil-nadu-vs-j-jayalalitha-on-9-may-2000#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-j-jayalalitha-on-9-may-2000"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Tamil Nadu vs J. Jayalalitha on 9 May, 2000","datePublished":"2000-05-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-21T16:58:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-j-jayalalitha-on-9-may-2000"},"wordCount":4668,"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-tamil-nadu-vs-j-jayalalitha-on-9-may-2000#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-j-jayalalitha-on-9-may-2000","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-j-jayalalitha-on-9-may-2000","name":"State Of Tamil Nadu vs J. Jayalalitha on 9 May, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-05-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-21T16:58:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-j-jayalalitha-on-9-may-2000#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-j-jayalalitha-on-9-may-2000"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-j-jayalalitha-on-9-may-2000#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Tamil Nadu vs J. Jayalalitha on 9 May, 2000"}]},{"@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\/52330","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=52330"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52330\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=52330"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=52330"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=52330"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}