{"id":64024,"date":"1980-02-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1980-02-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hazari-lal-vs-delhi-administration-on-15-february-1980"},"modified":"2015-09-22T10:27:01","modified_gmt":"2015-09-22T04:57:01","slug":"hazari-lal-vs-delhi-administration-on-15-february-1980","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hazari-lal-vs-delhi-administration-on-15-february-1980","title":{"rendered":"Hazari Lal vs Delhi Administration on 15 February, 1980"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Hazari Lal vs Delhi Administration on 15 February, 1980<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1980 AIR 873, \t\t 1980 SCR (2)1051<\/div>\n
Author: R S Sarkaria<\/div>\n
Bench: Sarkaria, Ranjit Singh<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nHAZARI LAL\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nDELHI ADMINISTRATION\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT15\/02\/1980\n\nBENCH:\nSARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH\nBENCH:\nSARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH\nREDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1980 AIR  873\t\t  1980 SCR  (2)1051\n 1980 SCC  (2) 390\n\n\nACT:\n     Prevention of  Corruption Act,  1947-Section 4(1)-Scope\nof-Accused  charged   with  demanding\tand  taking  illegal\ngratification-Many  prosecution\t witnesses  turned  hostile-\nStatements made by witnesses in the course of investigation-\nIf could  be used as substantive evidence-Evidence of police\ninspector-If needs corroboration.\n     Panch   witnesses-Clerks-If   could   not\t be   called\nindependent witnesses.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The accused  (appellant) who  was charged with offences\nunder section  5(1) (d)\t of the Prevention of Corruption Act\nand  section  161  of  the  Penal  Code\t was  convicted\t and\nsentenced  by\tthe  Special   Judge.  The  convictions\t and\nsentences were confirmed by the High Court.\n     The prosecution  alleged that  the scooter\t rickshaw of\nthe complainant driven by his driver was one day involved in\na traffic  accident and\t the vehicle was taken to the police\nstation by  the accused\t who was  a  police  constable.\t The\ncomplainant  obtained  orders  of  the\tMagistrate  for\t its\nrelease but  the accused  declined to  release\tthe  vehicle\nunless he  was paid a sum of Rs. 60. The complainant was not\nprepared to  pay the  sum  demanded.  He  then\twent  to  an\nInspector of  the Anti-Corruption  Department and  lodged  a\ncomplaint   that   the\t accused   was\t demanding   illegal\ngratification from  him\t for  the  release  of\this  scooter\nrickshaw which was ordered by the Magistrate to be released.\n     The prosecution  further  alleged\tthat  the  Inspector\ncalled two panch witnesses and after noting down the numbers\nof six\tten rupee  currency notes  given by the complainant,\ntreated them  with phenol  phthalene powder and gave them to\nthe complainant. It was arranged that the complainant should\nhand over  the currency\t notes to  the\taccused\t and  should\nthereafter make\t a signal  at which  the Inspector and panch\nwitnesses would\t enter the room. The complainant carried out\nthe plan  as  arranged\tand  gave  the\tcall  on  which\t the\nInspector and  panch  witnesses\t entered  the  room  of\t the\naccused. On  seeing the\t Inspector, the\t accused removed the\ncurrency notes\tfrom his  pocket and  flung them  across the\nwall into  the adjoining  room. The notes were collected and\nwhen compared  with the numbers noted earlier, they tallied.\nThe  hands  of\tthe  accused  were  then  dipped  in  sodium\nbicarbonate solution which, colourless earlier, turned pink.\nSimilarly the  handkerchief in\tthe right side pocket of the\ntrousers of  the accused  was removed  and  also  dipped  in\nsodium bicarbonate solution. That too turned pink.\n     Before the\t trial court  many of  the witnesses  turned\nhostile and  one of  the  panch\t witnesses  became  mentally\nderanged.\n     In appeal\tit was\tcontended before this Court that (1)\nthe courts below had made free use of the statements made by\nthe witnesses in the course of investigation as if they were\nsubstantive evidence and, if they were excluded, the rest of\nthe evidence would not be sufficient to draw the presumption\nunder\n1054\nsection 4(1)  of the  Prevention of  Corruption Act, (2) the\nfact that the Inspector was the very police officer who laid\nthe trap, should be sufficient to insist on corroboration of\nhis evidence.\n     Dismissing the appeal,\n^\n     HELD: 1(a) The courts below were clearly wrong in using\nas substantive\tevidence statements made by witnesses in the\ncourse of investigation. [1059E]\n     (b) Section  162 of  the  Code  of\t Criminal  Procedure\nimposes a bar on the use of any statement made by any person\nto a  police officer  in the  course of investigation at any\nenquiry\t or   trial  in\t  respect  of\tany  offence   under\ninvestigation at  the time  when such  statement  was  made,\nexcept for the purpose of contradicting the witnesses in the\nmanner provided\t by section  145 of  the Evidence Act. Where\nany part  of such  statement is so used any part thereof may\nalso be\t used in  the re-examination  of the witness for the\nlimited purpose\t of explaining any matter referred to in his\ncross-examination. The\tonly other exception to this embargo\non  the\t  use  of  statements  made  in\t the  course  of  an\ninvestigation relates  to the  statements falling within the\nprovisions of section 32(1) of the Evidence Act or permitted\nto be proved under s. 27 of the Evidence Act. [1059A-C]\n     (c) The  contention of the prosecution that the earlier\nstatements with\t which witnesses  were\tconfronted  for\t the\npurpose of  contradiction could\t be taken into consideration\nby the\tCourt in  view of  the\tdefinition  of\t\"proved\"  in\nsection\t 3  of\tthe  Evidence  Act  has\t no  substance.\t The\ndefinition of  the term\t \"proved\" does not enable a Court to\ntake into consideration matters, including statements, whose\nuse is statutorily barred. [1059G]\n     2(a)  The\t evidence  of\tthe  Inspector\tis  entirely\ntrustworthy and\t there is no need to seek any corroboration.\n[1059H]\n     (b) There\tis no rule of prudence which has crystalized\ninto a\trule of law, nor any rule of prudence which requires\nthat the  evidence of such police officers should be treated\non the\tsame footing  as evidence  of accomplices  and there\nshould be  insistence on  corroboration. In  the  facts\t and\ncircumstances  of   a  particular   case  a   court  may  be\ndisinclined to\tact upon  the evidence\tof such\t an  officer\nwithout\t corroboration,\t  but,\tequally\t in  the  facts\t and\ncircumstances of  another case\tthe court may unhesitatingly\naccept the  evidence of\t such an officer. It is all a matter\nof appreciation of evidence and on such matters there can be\nno hard\t and fast  rule nor  can there\tbe any\tprecedential\nguidance. [1060A-B].\n     In the  instant case  the proved  facts were  that\t the\ncomplainant made  a report  to the  Inspector, and  currency\nnotes whose  numbers were  noted and which were treated with\nphenol phthalene powder were handed over to the complainant.\nThe complainant\t went into  the accused's  room and came out\nafter a\t short while  giving the  agreed  signal.  When\t the\nInspector rushed  in, the  accused threw  the currency notes\nacross the  wall into  the adjoining room. His hands and the\nhandkerchief when  dipped  in  sodium  bicarbonate  solution\nturned\tpink  and  lastly  instead  of\tgiving\ta  plausible\nexplanation as\tto how\tthe phenol  phthalene powder came to\nhis hands  and the  handkerchief in  his pocket\t all that he\ncould say  was that  he \"knew  nothing about  it\". From\t all\nthese facts the only inference that follows is that currency\nnotes were  obtained by the accused from the complainant. It\nis not necessary that the passing of\n1055\nmoney should  be proved\t by direct  evidence, it may also be\nproved by circumstantial evidence. The events which followed\nin quick  succession in\t the present  case led\tto the\tonly\ninference that\tthe money  was obtained\t by the accused from\nthe complainant.\n     3. Under  section 114 of the Evidence Act the Court may\npresume the  existence of  any fact  which is likely to have\nhappened regard\t being had  to the  common course of natural\nevents, human  conduct and  public and\tprivate business, in\ntheir relation\tto facts  of the particular case. One of the\nillustrations to  this section is that the Court may presume\nthat a\tperson who  is in  possession of  stolen goods\tsoon\nafter the  theft is  either the\t thief or  has received\t the\ngoods knowing  them to\tbe stolen, unless he can account for\nhis possession. So too in the facts and circumstances of the\npresent case the Court may presume that the accused who took\nout the currency notes from his pocket and flung them across\nthe wall  had obtained\tthem from the complainant who, a few\nminutes earlier, was shown to have been in possession of the\nnotes. Once  it is  found that\tthe accused had obtained the\nmoney from  the complainant  the presumption under section 4\n(1) of\tthe Prevention\tof  Corruption\tAct  is\t immediately\nattracted. The presumption is rebuttable, but in the present\ncase there  is no  material to\trebut the  presumption.\t The\naccused was,  therefore,     rightly convicted by the courts\nbelow. [1061D-F]\n     Sita Ram  v. The  State of\t Rajasthan AIR<\/a> 1975 SC 1432;\nSuraj Mal  v. The  State (Delhi\t Administration) AIR<\/a> 1979 SC\n1408 held inapplicable.\n     4. There  is no  force in\tthe contention\tthat persons\nholding clerical  posts\t could\tnot  be\t called\t independent\nwitnesses on  the ground  that they  would be  under fear of\ndisciplinary action  if they did not support the prosecution\ncase. The  respectability and  verasity of  a witness is not\nnecessarily dependent  upon his status in life and it cannot\nbe said\t that clerks  are less\ttruthful and  amenable\tthan\nsuperior officers. [1060E]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE\t JURISDICTION: Criminal\t Appeal\t No.
\n211 of 1974.\n<\/p>\n
     Appeal by\tspecial leave  from the\t Judgment and  order
\ndated 19-4-1974\t of the\t Delhi High  Court in  Crl.  A.\t No.
\n186\/72.\n<\/p>\n
     Frank Anthony,  S. K  Dholakia and R. C. Bhatia for the
\nAppellant.\n<\/p>\n
     H. S. Marwah and R. N. Sachthey for the Respondent.
\n     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     CHINNAPPA\tREDDY,\tJ.  The\t appellant  Hazari  Lal\t was
\nconvicted by  the learned  Special Judge, Delhi, of offences
\nunder section  5(2)  read  with\t section  5(1)\t(d)  of\t the
\nPrevention of  Corruption Act,\t1947, and Section 161 of the
\nIndian Penal  Code. On\tthe first  count he was sentenced to
\nsuffer rigorous\t imprisonment for  a period of two years and
\nto pay\ta fine\tof Rs.\t500. On\t the  second  count  he\t was
\nsentenced to  suffer rigorous  imprisonment for\t a period of
\ntwo  years.   The  two\t sentences  were   directed  to\t run
\nconcurrently. The  convictions and  sentences were confirmed
\nby the High Court of Delhi.\n<\/p>\n
1056<\/span><\/p>\n
     The case  which the prosecution set out to prove before
\nthe Trial Judge was briefly as follows:\n<\/p>\n
     The scooter  rickshaw belonging  to Sri Ram (P.W.3) and
\ndriven by his driver Ram Lubhaya (P.W. 6) was involved in an
\naccident on  July 12, 1969. The scooter rickshaw and a tonga
\nwhich were involved in the accident were taken to the Police
\nStation, Kashmere  Gate by  the accused,  a Police constable
\nattached to  that station.  P.W. 3  obtained orders from the
\nMagistrate for\tthe release  of his  vehicle and went to the
\nPolice Station\tto  obtain  delivery  of  the  vehicle.\t The
\naccused, who  was present took him outside and told him that
\nthe vehicle would be given to him only if he paid a bribe of
\nRs. 60.\t P.W.  3  then\twent  away.  He\t went  to  the\tAnti
\nCorruption Department  and made statement to Inspector Paras
\nNath, P.W.  8. After recording the statement of P.W. 3, P.W.
\n8 sent\tfor two\t persons Davinder  Kumar (P.W.\t4) and Kewal
\nKrishan. The  statement of  P.W. 3 was read out to P.W. 3 in
\nthe presence  of the  two Panch witnesses Davinder Kumar and
\nKewal Krishan.\tP.W. 3\tthen produced  six currency notes of
\nthe value  of Rs.  10 each.  The numbers  of the  notes were
\nnoted and  they were  treated with  phenol phthelene powder.
\nAfter the  usual instructions  were given  to P.W. 3 and the
\npanch  witnesses,   the\t raiding   party  proceeded  towards
\nKashmere Gate.\tP.W. 3,\t P.W. 6\t and Kewal Krishan went into
\nthe Police  Station, while P.W. 8 and others stayed outside.
\nThe money was handed over to the accused who took it and put
\nit inside  the right hand pocket of his trousers. P.W. 6 and
\nKewal  Krishan\tthen  came  out\t and  signalled\t to  P.W.  8
\nwhereupon P.W.\t8 and  the Panch  witnesses went  inside the
\nPolice Station.\t The accused  was present inside. As soon as
\nhe saw\tthe party  led by  P.W. 8  he took  out the currency
\nnotes from  the right  side pocket of his trousers and threw
\nthem across  the  wall\tinto  the  adjoining  room.  P.W.  8
\ninstructed some\t of the\t police officers accompanying him to
\nrush to\t the adjoining\troom and  to keep  a watch  over the
\nnotes which  must have\tfallen\tthere.\tHe  then  introduced
\nhimself to  the accused\t and took him to the adjoining room.
\nSome of\t the notes  were lying\ton the\ttable  of  the\tDuty
\nOfficer in  that room  while others had fallen on the ground
\nnear the  chair of  the Duty  officer. The  six\t notes\twere
\ncollected in the presence of the witnesses and their numbers
\nwere compared  with the\t numbers noted before they proceeded
\non the raid. The numbers tallied. The accused was questioned
\nby the\tInspector and  he denied  that he  had demanded\t any
\nbribe and  kept silent\tabout the  acceptance of  the bribe.
\nBoth  the  hands  of  the  accused  were  dipped  in  sodium
\ncarbonate solution  and the  solution which  was  previously
\ncolourless turned pink. The same test was repeated
\n1057<\/span>
\nwith the  handkerchief which was taken out of the right hand
\nside pocket of the accused and also with the trousers of the
\naccused. Each  test resulted  in  the  bicarbonate  solution
\nturning\t pink.\tAfter  completion  of  the  investigation  a
\ncharge-sheet was laid against the accused being for offences
\nunder s.  5(2) read  with s.  5(1) (d)\tof the Prevention of
\nCorruption Act and s. 161 of the Indian Penal Code.\n<\/p>\n
     All that  has been\t mentioned in the previous paragraph
\nwas what  the prosecution  set out to prove before the Trial
\nCourt. But  many of  the witnesses turned volte face. P.W. 3
\nstated in  his evidence\t that on  the first occasion when he
\nwent to the Police Station to obtain delivery of his scooter
\nrickshaw it  was not  the accused  that was  present but one
\nHawaldar. It  was the  Hawaldar and  not  the  accused\tthat
\ndemanded the  bribe of\tRs. 60 from him. According to him at
\nthe time of the raid, when he, P.W. 6 and Kewal Krishan went
\ninside the  Police Station  they found the accused there and
\nasked him  to take  the sum of Rs. 60 and return the scooter
\nrickshaw. P.W.\t3 stretched  his hand with the money towards
\nthe pocket  of the  accused’s trousers\tbut the accused said
\nthe money might be paid to the person for whom it was meant.
\nHe refused  to receive\tthe money  and jerked  P.W. 3’s hand
\nwith his  hand as  a result  of which  the notes  came to be
\nflung across  the wall\tinto the  neighbouring room. He told
\nthe Inspector  that the notes had been flung across the wall
\nand that  the accused  had neither  demanded the amount from
\nhim nor\t accepted the  money from him. On the other hand the
\naccused\t had  refused  to  take\t the  money  from  him.\t The
\nInspector recovered  the notes\tfrom the  neighbouring room,
\nplaced them  on\t the  table  and  thereafter  subjected\t the
\nhandkerchief and the pocket of the accused’s trousers to the
\nphenol phthelene  test. The  implication of this part of the
\nevidence was  that it  was as  a result\t of the\t handling of
\nthese articles\tby the\tInspector that\tthey  came  to\thave
\nphenol phthelene  powder and  that was\tthe reason  why\t the
\nsolution turned\t pink. P.W.3  was  treated  as\thostile\t and
\ncross-examined by  the prosecution  with  reference  to\t the
\nearlier statements  made by him. P.W. 6 followed suit and he
\ntoo  was   declared  hostile   and  cross-examined   by\t the
\nprosecution with reference to his earlier statements.\n<\/p>\n
     Of the  two  panch\t witnesses  Kewal  Krishan  was\t not
\nexamined as he had become mentally deranged before the trial
\nof the\tcase. Davinder\tKumar was  examined as\tP.W. 4. This
\nwitness supported  the prosecution  case in some particulars
\nbut in\tregard\tto  other  particulars\the  made  statements
\ncontrary to  his earlier  statements. He was also treated as
\nhostile and  cross-examined by the prosecution. In substance
\nhis chief-examination  was to  the affect  that P.W.3, P.W.6
\nand
\n1058<\/span>
\nKewal Krishan  went inside  the\t Police\t Station,  while  he
\nstayed outside\twith the  Inspector P.W. 8. P.W.3, P.W.6 and
\nKewal Krishan  came out\t after sometime\t and stated that the
\naccused had  accepted the bribe. The raiding party then went
\ninside. On  seeing the\tInspector the accused got suspicious
\nand threw  away the  currency notes across the wall into the
\nneighbouring room.  In examination-in-chief  he also  stated
\nthat before  they proceeded  to the  Police Station  for the
\nraid, statement\t of both  P.W.3 and P.W.6 had been recorded.
\nHe stated that after the bribe was given P.W.3 also came out
\nand signalled  to P.W.8\t that  the  bribe  had\tbeen  given.
\nAnother statement  made by him in chief-examination was that
\nhe was\tunable to  remember if\tthe Inspector questioned the
\naccused at  the time  of the  raid. As these statements were
\ncontrary to  his earlier statements he was cross-examined by
\nthe prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
     Paras Nath,  (P.W.8) spoke to the complaint made to him
\nby P.W.3.,  the action that he took, the raid etc. Regarding
\nthe actual  raid he  stated  that  P.W.3,  P.W.6  and  Kewal
\nKrishan\t first\t went  inside\tthe  Police  Station.  After
\nsometime, P.W.6\t and Kewal  Krishan came  out and  signalled
\nthat P.W.3 had passed the bribe money and that P.W.3 and the
\naccused were  in the room. When he went in, the accused took
\nout the notes from the right side pocket of his trousers and
\nthrew them  across the wall into the adjoining room. He then
\nspoke to the test made by him etc.
\n     On this  evidence both  the learned  Sessions Judge and
\nthe High  Court found the accused guilty of the two offences
\nwith which  he was  charged.  Shri  Frank  Anthony,  learned
\ncounsel for  the appellant  submitted that  the Courts below
\nhad made free use of the statements made by the witnesses in
\nthe course  of the  investigation as if such statements were
\nsubstantive evidence. If those statements were excluded from
\nconsideration there  would be  no evidence  of any demand or
\nacceptance of bribe by the accused. All that the prosecution
\nwould be  left with  would be  the evidence of the Inspector
\nand P.W.4  to the  effect that\tthe  accused  took  out\t the
\ncurrency notes\tfrom the  right side  pocket of his trousers
\nand flung them across the wall into the adjoining room. That
\nevidence according  to the  learned  counsel  would  not  be
\nsufficient, even  if accepted, to draw the presumption under
\ns. 4(1)\t of the\t Prevention of\tCorruption Act. Reliance was
\nplaced upon  the decision  of this  Court in Sita Ram v. The
\nState of  Rajasthan,<\/a>(1) and  Suraj Mal\tv. The\tState (Delhi
\nAdministration<\/a> (2).\n<\/p>\n
1059<\/span><\/p>\n
     The learned  counsel was  right in his submission about
\nthe free  use made  by the  Courts below  of  statements  of
\nwitnesses  recorded  during  the  course  of  investigation.
\nSection 162  of the Code of Criminal Procedure imposes a bar
\non the\tuse of\tany statement made by any person to a Police
\nOfficer in  the course\tof investigation  at any  enquiry or
\ntrial in  respect of  any offence under investigation at the
\ntime when such statement was made, except for the purpose of
\ncontradicting the witness in the manner provided by s.145 of
\nthe Indian Evidence Act. Where any part of such statement is
\nso used\t any part  thereof may\talso  be  used\tin  the\t re-
\nexamination of\tthe  witness  for  the\tlimited\t purpose  of
\nexplaining any\tmatter referred to in his cross-examination.
\nThe only  other exceptions  to this  embargo on\t the use  of
\nstatements made\t in the\t course of an investigation, relates
\nto the\tstatements falling within the provisions of s. 32(1)
\nof the\tIndian Evidence\t Act or permitted to be proved under
\ns. 27  of the Indian Evidence Act. S.145 of the Evidence Act
\nprovides that a witness may be cross-examined as to previous
\nstatements made\t by him\t in writing and reduced into writing
\nand relevant  to matters  in question,\twithout such writing
\nbeing shown  to him  or being  proved but,  that  if  it  is
\nintended to  contradict him  by the  writing, his  attention
\nmust, before  the writing  can be proved, be called to those
\nparts of  it which  are\t to  be\t used  for  the\t purpose  of
\ncontradicting him.  The Courts\tbelow were  clearly wrong in
\nusing as  substantive evidence\tstatements made by witnesses
\nin the\tcourse of  investigation. Shri H. S. Marwah, learned
\ncounsel for  the Delhi Administration amazed us by advancing
\nthe  argument\tthat  the   earlier  statements\t with  which
\nwitnesses were\tconfronted for\tthe purpose of contradiction
\ncould be  taken into  consideration by\tthe Court in view of
\nthe definition\tof “proved” in section 3 of the Evidence Act
\nwhich  is,  “a\tfact  is  said\tto  be\tproved\twhen,  after
\nconsidering the matters before it, the Court either believes
\nit to  exist or\t considers its\texistence so probable that a
\nprudent man,  ought, in\t the circumstances of the particular
\ncase to\t act upon  the supposition  that it exists.” We need
\nsay no more on the submission of Shri Marwah except that the
\ndefinition of  proved does  not enable\ta Court to take into
\nconsideration matters,\tincluding statements,  whose use  is
\nstatutorily barred.\n<\/p>\n
     After excluding  irrelevant material  we are  left with
\nthe evidence  of P.W.8\tand that  of  P.W.4  whose  evidence
\ncorroborates that  of P.W.8 in several material particulars.
\nWe, however,  wish to  say that\t the evidence  of  P.W.8  is
\nentirely trustworthy  and there\t is  no\t need  to  seek\t any
\ncorroboration. We  are not prepared to accept the submission
\nof Shri\t Frank Anthony\tthat the  fact that  he is  the very
\nPolice Officer who laid the trap should be sufficient for us
\nto insist upon
\n1060<\/span>
\ncorroboration. We  do wish  to say  that there is no rule of
\nprudence which\thas crystallized  into a  rule of  law,\t nor
\nindeed\tany  rule  of  prudence,  which\t requires  that\t the
\nevidence of  such officers  should be  treated on  the\tsame
\nfooting as  evidence of\t accomplices  and  there  should  be
\ninsistence on  corroboration. In the facts and circumstances
\nof a  particular case a Court may be disinclined to act upon
\nthe evidence  of such an officer without corroboration, but,
\nequally, in  the facts and circumstances of another case the
\nCourt may  unhesitatingly accept  the evidence\tof  such  an
\nofficer. It  is all a matter of appreciation of evidence and
\non such\t matters there can be no hard and fast rule, nor can
\nthere be  any precedential  guidance. We  are forced  to say
\nthis because  of late  we have come across several judgments
\nof Courts of Session and sometimes even of High Courts where
\nreference is  made to  decisions of this Court on matters of
\nappreciation of\t evidence and  decisions of pure question of
\nfact. While  on this  subject of appreciation of evidence we
\nmay also refer to an argument of Shri Frank Anthony based on
\nthe observations  of a\tlearned single judge in Kharaiti Lal
\nv. The State,(1) that persons holding clerical posts and the
\nlike should  not be  called  as\t panch\twitnesses,  as\tsuch
\nwitnesses could\t not really  be called independent witnesses
\nas they would always be under fear of disciplinary action if
\nthey did  not support  the prosecution case. We do not think
\nwe can\taccept the  submission of  Shri Frank  Anthony.\t The
\nrespectability\tand   the  veracity  of\t a  witness  is\t not
\nnecessarily dependent upon his status in life and we are not
\nprepared to  say that  Clerks are  less\t truthful  and\tmore
\namenable than their superior officers.\n<\/p>\n
     From the  evidence of  P.W.8 and  that of\tP.W.4 we may
\ntake the following facts as established: P.W.3 made a report
\nto P.W.8. He produced six currency notes of the denomination
\nof ten\trupees whose  numbers  were  noted  and\t which\twere
\ntreated with  phenol phthelene\tpowder. Thereafter the notes
\nwere handed  over to  P.W.3. P.W.3,  P.W.6 and Kewal Krishan
\nwent inside  the Police\t Station. After\t sometime P.W.6\t and
\nKewal Krishan  came out\t and gave  a signal. P.W.8 then went
\ninside the Police Station. On seeing him the accused who was
\ninside the  Police Station with P.W.3 took out some currency
\nnotes from  the right  side pocket of his trousers and threw
\nthem across  the partition wall into the adjoining room. The
\nnotes which were so thrown out by the accused, were found to
\nbe the\tsame  notes  which  had\t been  treated\twith  phenol
\nphthelene and  handed over  to P.W.3  before the  raid.\t The
\nhandkerchief which was taken out of the right side pocket of
\nthe trouser of the accused as well as the
\n1061<\/span>
\nright side  pocket itself  were subjected  to a\t test  which
\nshowed that  they too  had come\t into  contact\twith  phenol
\nphthelene powder. It may be noted that the circumstance that
\nthe handkerchief  (Ex.P-4) recovered  from  the\t right\tside
\npocket of  the\tpant  on  the  person  of  the\taccused\t was
\nsubjected to the colour test which indicated the presence of
\nphenol phthelene  powder on that handkerchief was put to the
\nappellant in  his examination  under section  313,  Criminal
\nProcedure Code.\t Instead of giving any explanation as to how
\nthis phenol  phthelene powder came on the handkerchief lying
\nin his\tpocket, the appellant replied. “I know nothing about
\nit.”  From  these  facts  the  irresistible  inference\tmust
\nfollow, in  the absence of any explanation from the accused,
\nthat currency notes were obtained by the accused from P.W.3.
\nIt is  not necessary  that the\tpassing of  money should  be
\nproved\tby  direct  evidence.  It  may\talso  be  proved  by
\ncircumstantial evidence.  The events which followed in quick
\nsuccession in  the present  case lead  to the only inference
\nthat the money was obtained by the accused from P.W.3. Under
\ns.114  of  the\tEvidence  Act  the  Court  may\tpresume\t the
\nexistence of  any  fact\t which\tit  thinks  likely  to\thave
\nhappened, regard  being had  to the common course of natural
\nevents, human  conduct and  public and\tprivate business, in
\ntheir relation\tto facts  of the particular case. One of the
\nillustrations to s.114 of the Evidence Act is that the Court
\nmay presume that a person who is in possession of the stolen
\ngoods soon  after the  theft, is  either the  thief  or\t has
\nreceived the  goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can
\naccount for  his  possession.  So  too,\t in  the  facts\t and
\ncircumstances of the present case the Court may presume that
\nthe accused  who took out the currency notes from his pocket
\nand flung them across the wall had obtained them from P.W.3,
\nwho a  few  minutes  earlier  was  shown  to  have  been  in
\npossession of  the notes. Once we arrive at the finding that
\nthe  accused   had  obtained   the  money  from\t P.W.3,\t the
\npresumption under s.4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act
\nis immediately\tattracted.  The\t presumption  is  of  course
\nrebuttable but\tin the\tpresent case there is no material to
\nrebut the  presumption. The  accused was, therefore, rightly
\nconvicted by the Courts below.\n<\/p>\n
     We will now refer to the two decisions of this Court on
\nwhich Shri Frank Anthony relied. In Sita Ram v. The State of
\nRajasthan,<\/a> (supra)  the\t evidence  of  the  complainant\t was
\nrejected and  it was  held that\t there was  no\tevidence  to
\nestablish that\tthe accused  had received  any gratification
\nfrom any  person. On  that  finding  the  presumption  under
\ns.4(1) of  the Prevention  of Corruption  Act was not drawn.
\nThe question whether the rest of the evidence was sufficient
\nto establish  that the\taccused had  obtained the money from
\nthe complainant
\n1062<\/span>
\nwas not\t considered. All  that was  taken as established was
\nthe recovery of certain money from the person of the accused
\nand it\twas held  that mere recovery of money was not enough
\nto entitle  the drawing\t of the\t presumption under s.4(1) of
\nthe Prevention of Corruption Act. The Court did not consider
\nthe further question whether recovery of the money alongwith
\nother circumstances  could establish  that the\taccused\t had
\nobtained gratification\tfrom any person. In the present case
\nwe have\t found that  the circumstances\testablished  by\t the
\nprosecution entitled  the Court\t to hold  that\tthe  accused
\nreceived the  gratification from  P.W.3. In Suraj Mal v. The
\nState (Delhi  Administration)<\/a> (supra)  also it was said mere
\nrecovery of  money divorced  from  the\tcircumstances  under
\nwhich it  was paid  was not  sufficient when the substantive
\nevidence in  the case  was not\treliable to prove payment of
\nbribe or  to show  that the accused voluntarily accepted the
\nmoney. There  can be  no quarrel  with that  proposition but
\nwhere  the   recovery  of   the\t money\tcoupled\t with  other
\ncircumstances leads  to\t the  conclusion  that\tthe  accused
\nreceived gratification\tfrom some  person  the\tCourt  would
\ncertainly be  entitled to  draw the presumption under s.4(1)
\nof the\tPrevention of  Corruption Act.\tIn our view both the
\ndecisions are  of no  avail to\tthe appellant and as already
\nobserved by  us conclusions  of fact  must be  drawn on\t the
\nfacts of  each case  and not on the facts of other cases. In
\nother words  there can\tbe no  precedents  on  questions  of
\nfacts. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
P.B.R.\t\t\t\t\t   Appeal dismissed.\n1063<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Hazari Lal vs Delhi Administration on 15 February, 1980 Equivalent citations: 1980 AIR 873, 1980 SCR (2)1051 Author: R S Sarkaria Bench: Sarkaria, Ranjit Singh PETITIONER: HAZARI LAL Vs. RESPONDENT: DELHI ADMINISTRATION DATE OF JUDGMENT15\/02\/1980 BENCH: SARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH BENCH: SARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) CITATION: 1980 AIR 873 […]<\/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-64024","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nHazari Lal vs Delhi Administration on 15 February, 1980 - 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\/hazari-lal-vs-delhi-administration-on-15-february-1980\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Hazari Lal vs Delhi Administration on 15 February, 1980 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hazari-lal-vs-delhi-administration-on-15-february-1980\" \/>\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=\"1980-02-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-09-22T04:57:01+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=\"24 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hazari-lal-vs-delhi-administration-on-15-february-1980#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hazari-lal-vs-delhi-administration-on-15-february-1980\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Hazari Lal vs Delhi Administration on 15 February, 1980\",\"datePublished\":\"1980-02-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-22T04:57:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hazari-lal-vs-delhi-administration-on-15-february-1980\"},\"wordCount\":3350,\"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\\\/hazari-lal-vs-delhi-administration-on-15-february-1980#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hazari-lal-vs-delhi-administration-on-15-february-1980\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hazari-lal-vs-delhi-administration-on-15-february-1980\",\"name\":\"Hazari Lal vs Delhi Administration on 15 February, 1980 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1980-02-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-22T04:57:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hazari-lal-vs-delhi-administration-on-15-february-1980#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hazari-lal-vs-delhi-administration-on-15-february-1980\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hazari-lal-vs-delhi-administration-on-15-february-1980#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Hazari Lal vs Delhi Administration on 15 February, 1980\"}]},{\"@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":"Hazari Lal vs Delhi Administration on 15 February, 1980 - 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\/hazari-lal-vs-delhi-administration-on-15-february-1980","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Hazari Lal vs Delhi Administration on 15 February, 1980 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hazari-lal-vs-delhi-administration-on-15-february-1980","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1980-02-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-09-22T04:57:01+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":"24 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hazari-lal-vs-delhi-administration-on-15-february-1980#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hazari-lal-vs-delhi-administration-on-15-february-1980"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Hazari Lal vs Delhi Administration on 15 February, 1980","datePublished":"1980-02-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-22T04:57:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hazari-lal-vs-delhi-administration-on-15-february-1980"},"wordCount":3350,"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\/hazari-lal-vs-delhi-administration-on-15-february-1980#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hazari-lal-vs-delhi-administration-on-15-february-1980","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hazari-lal-vs-delhi-administration-on-15-february-1980","name":"Hazari Lal vs Delhi Administration on 15 February, 1980 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1980-02-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-22T04:57:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hazari-lal-vs-delhi-administration-on-15-february-1980#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hazari-lal-vs-delhi-administration-on-15-february-1980"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hazari-lal-vs-delhi-administration-on-15-february-1980#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Hazari Lal vs Delhi Administration on 15 February, 1980"}]},{"@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\/64024","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=64024"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64024\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=64024"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=64024"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=64024"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}