{"id":66442,"date":"2007-11-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-11-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-irudhayam-vs-the-state-on-2-november-2007"},"modified":"2017-11-14T16:01:34","modified_gmt":"2017-11-14T10:31:34","slug":"s-irudhayam-vs-the-state-on-2-november-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-irudhayam-vs-the-state-on-2-november-2007","title":{"rendered":"S.Irudhayam vs The State on 2 November, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
S.Irudhayam vs The State on 2 November, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\n\nDATED  :  02\/11\/2007\n\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU\n\n\nCriminal Original Petition No.8157 of 2001\nand\nCrl.M.P.No.10601 of 1999\n\n\nS.Irudhayam\t\t\t..\t\tPetitioner\n\n\nVs.\n\n\nThe State\nRepresented by\nThe Inspector of Police,\nVigilance and Anti-corruption,\nMadurai Detachment,\nNo.24, Kamala Iind Street,\nChinnachokikulam,\nMadurai - 625 002.\t\t..\t\tRespondent\n\n\nPrayer\n\n\nThis petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the\nentire records comprised in S.C.No.1 of 1996 pending on the file of the learned\nChief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai and to quash the same.\n\n\n!For Petitioner\t\t...\t\tMr.Rupert J.Barnabas\n\n\n^For Respondent\t\t...\t\tMr.Siva Ayyappan\n\t\t\t\t\tGovernment Advocate (Crl.side)\n\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
\tThe petitioner is the sole accused in S.C.No.1 of 1996, on the file of the
\nlearned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai. The charges against him are under
\nSections 120B r\/w 409 & 420 I.P.C., and Section 13(2) r\/w 13(1)(a) & (d) of the
\nPrevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He has filed the present criminal original
\npetition seeking to quash the said proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.Admittedly, the petitioner was working as a Superintending Engineer,
\nPublic Works Department, Madurai Circle and he was holding the Additional charge
\nof Special Buildings Circle, Madurai between the year 1992 and 26.09.1995. There
\nis no dispute that he is a public servant.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.It is stated in the final report that the Government of Tamil Nadu
\nissued G.O.Ms.No.1492, Health Department dated 22.11.1991 and issued orders for
\nproviding steam Laundries in 16 District Head Quarters Hospitals in Tamil Nadu
\nat a total estimated capital cost of Rs.8 crores at the rate of 15 lakhs per
\nhospital. In G.O.Ms.No.381, Health Department 31.03.1992, the Government of
\nTamil Nadu accorded administrative sanction for taking up the above work. In
\nG.O.Ms.No.18, Health and Family Welfare Department dated 06.01.1993, the
\nGovernment approved the plan and estimate to be followed for provision of the
\nsteam laundries in Head Quarters Hospitals. Based on the above orders of the
\nGovernment, technical sanction for the estimate, each to a cost of Rs.55 lakhs
\nfor the construction of steam laundries in 15 places were accorded by the Chief
\nEngineer (Buildings), Public Works Department for the year 1992-1993, with
\nprovisions for civil, mechanical and electrical items.\n<\/p>\n
\t4.The petitioner who was in additional charge of Special Buildings Circle,
\nMadurai ordered for the work for steam laundry which was a single item of work
\nwas split into 4 items, without recording proper reasons, by restricting each
\nitem to less than Rs.40 lakhs though such splitting up was against the
\nGovernment instructions. The petitioner then called for quotations specifying to
\nprovide for 600 kg per hour steam boiler, as against 1000 kg, per hour steam
\nboiler, provided in the technically sanctioned estimates. The petitioner without
\ngiving wide publicity, called for quotations from selected societies of his
\nchoice. Those four co-operative societies had responded by submitting separate
\nquotations and after comparing the rates, the petitioner entrusted the work for
\nthe above four societies.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.The quotation furnished by the above four societies are collusive in
\nnature and the said societies gave boosted rates and had obtained supply orders
\nfrom the petitioner. The petitioner ordered for 90% of advance payment to them
\nand accordingly, the same was paid. The petitioner had indulged in corrupt
\nactivities in the matter of placing orders for the above four societies thereby
\ncausing huge loss to the Government. The petitioner has committed offence
\nenumerated above. The trial Court has already framed charges. As a matter of
\nfact, one witness has already been examined as P.W.1 on the side of the
\nprosecution. The petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking to quash
\nthe said proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
\t6.The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following
\ngrounds:-\n<\/p>\n
\t(i)The complainant himself has investigated the case and he has filed the
\nfinal report which is illegal.\n<\/p>\n
\t(ii)The investigation has been conducted not by any officer authorised
\nunder Section 17 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
\t(iii)Registration of the case in a hasty manner without a preliminary
\nenquiry is irregular and the same vitiates the entire case.\n<\/p>\n
\t(iv)There was inordinate unexplained delay in placing the report before
\nthe sanctioning authority for securing sanction and the sanctioning authority in
\nturn had caused unnecessary delay in giving sanction and the said delay vitiates
\nthe sanction order.\n<\/p>\n
\t(iv)The sanction order suffers from material defects, and it is void for
\nwant of application of mind.\n<\/p>\n
\t(v)A legal opinion given by one Mr.S.Venkatraman, the then Deputy Legal
\nAdvisor, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Madurai, was not placed before the
\nsanctioning authority and such withholding of vital document vitiates the
\nsanction order.\n<\/p>\n
\t(vi)Even the entire allegations found in the papers are admitted, no
\noffence as alleged against the petitioner has been made out warranting trial.\n<\/p>\n
\t7.While concluding his argument, the learned counsel submitted that though
\nthe present petition before this Court was pending, the respondent has proceed
\nwith the trial of the case by examining P.W.1 which would amount to interference
\nwith the proceedings of this Court amounting to clear contempt warranting
\ninitiation of action against the Investigating Officer and the Public Prosecutor
\nfor punishment under the Contempt of Courts Act.\n<\/p>\n
\t8.The learned counsel in support of his arguments, would rely on several
\njudgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court  as well as this Court which, I would
\nrefer to at the appropriate places of this order.\n<\/p>\n
\t9.Mr.Siva Ayyappan, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for
\nthe respondent would submit the following points:-\n<\/p>\n
\t(i)The grounds raised in this petition are all to be  considered only by
\nthe trial Court during trial on evidence and this Court in exercise of its
\ninherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., cannot look into these grounds
\nat this stage.\n<\/p>\n
\t(ii)There is no legal bar for the complainant to investigate the case and
\nquestion of prejudice due to such investigation is to be considered only at the
\ntime of trial.\n<\/p>\n
\t(iii)The sanction order is valid and the same does not suffer from any
\ninfirmity. He would further submit that under Section 19 of the Act, defects in
\nthe sanction order cannot be a ground even for acquittal and therefore, the same
\ncannot be a ground for quashing the proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
\t(iv)The delay in obtaining the sanction order and in filing the charge
\nsheet are all explainable and on the ground of mere delay, the criminal
\nproceedings cannot be quashed.\n<\/p>\n
\t(v)In respect of the contention that no offence as alleged against the
\npetitioner is made out from the records also cannot be accepted at this stage
\nsince from the materials now available for this Court to go through, there are
\nmaterials to come to the cocnlsuion that there is a prima facie case against the
\npetitioner warranting trial. Therefore, the said contention is also to be
\nrejected.\n<\/p>\n
\t(vi)Regarding the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner,
\nto initiate proceedings for contempt, the learned Government Advocate would
\nsubmit that mere pendency of the proceedings before this Court cannot be
\nconstrued to be a bar for the prosecution to proceed with the trial in the
\ncriminal case. Examination of P.W.1 in the case would not amount to any
\nillegality or irregularity and therefore, the said request made by the learned
\ncounsel for the petitioner for initiation of contempt proceedings is unwarranted
\nand untenable.\n<\/p>\n
\t10.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would also rely on number
\nof judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and about which, I will make reference
\nat the appropriate stage of this order.\n<\/p>\n
\t11.Now let me consider the rival contentions made by the learned counsel
\nfor both parties.\n<\/p>\n
\t12.Before adverting to the rival contentions of the learned counsel for
\nboth parties, let me first analyse the scope of the power of this Court under
\nSection 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the criminal case which is pending trial.\n<\/p>\n
\t13.The Hon’ble Supreme Court has been repeatedly holding that the power
\nunder Section 482 Cr.P.C., is an exceptional power and while exercising the said
\npower, the Court does not function as a Court of appeal or as a Court of
\nRevision. The inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has to be
\nexercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is
\njustified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself.\n<\/p>\n
\t14.Following the judgments in R.P.Kapoor v. State of Punjab (AIR<\/a> 1960 866)
\nand in State of Haryana v. Bhajaj Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604) (Supp (1) SCC 335), the
\nHon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Kasturi Lal (AIR<\/a> 2004 SC 4087) in
\nparagraph No.10 has held as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t“10.Exercise of power under S.482 of the Code in a case of this nature is
\nthe exception and not the rule. The section does not confer any new powers on
\nthe High Court. It only saves the inherent power which the Court possessed
\nbefore the enactment of the Code. It envisages three circumstances under which
\nthe inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (i) to give effect to an
\norder under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of Court, and (iii)
\nto otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is neither possible nor desirable to
\nlay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent
\njurisdiction. No legislative enactment dealing with procedure can provide for
\nall cases that may possibly arise. Courts, therefore, have inherent powers apart
\nfrom express provisions of law which are necessary for proper discharge of
\nfunctions and duties imposed upon them by law. That is the doctrine which finds
\nexpression in the section which merely recognizes and preserves inherent powers
\nof the of the High Courts. All Courts, whether civil or criminal possess, in the
\nabsence of any express provision, as inherent in their constitution, all such
\npowers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in course of
\nadministration of justice. While exercising powers under the section, the Court
\ndoes not function as a Court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under
\nthe section though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with
\ncaution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid
\ndown in the section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real
\nand substantial justice for the administration of which alone Courts exist.
\nAuthority of the Court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is
\nmade to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the Court has power to
\nprevent such abuse. It would be an abuse of process of the Court to allow any
\naction which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In
\nexercise of the powers Court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it
\nfinds that initiation\/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of Court
\nor quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When
\nno offence is disclosed by the complainant, the Court may examine the question
\nof fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look
\ninto the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any
\noffence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto.”\n<\/p>\n
\t15.Keeping in mind the above position of law as declared by the Hon’ble
\nSupreme Court, let me now consider the points raised by the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
\t16.The first point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is
\nthat in this case, the F.I.R., was registered by one Mr.R.Venugopal, the then
\nInspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Madurai and he himself has
\ndone the investigation in this case. The learned counsel would submit that the
\nsaid course adopted by him is irregular and on that ground, the case should be
\nquashed. The learned counsel relies on two judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme
\nCourt in Bhagwan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (AIR<\/a> 1976 SC 985) and in Megha
\nSingh v. State of Haryana<\/a> (1997 SCC (Cri) 267).\n<\/p>\n
\t17.In  Bhagwan Singh v. State of Rajasthan<\/a> (cited supra), bribe was
\noffered to a Head Constable who later on registered the case and investigated.
\nIn the light of the said facts, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the
\ninvestigation done by the said Head Constable is an infirmity which was bound to
\nreflect on the credibility of the prosecution case. Whether the prosecution case
\nis credible or not is a matter of appreciation of evidence which should be
\ndecided only during trial on evidence. Now, to allow the prosecution to go ahead
\nwith the trial, what is required of is only prima facie case. Even in that case,
\nthe Hon’ble Supreme Court has not held that it vitiates the entire proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
\t18.It is needless to say that the object of investigation is to find out
\nthe truth and to place all the materials before the Court of law. In the
\nreported case, since the complaint itself was made by the Head Constable
\nalleging that the accused in that case offered bribe to him, to test the
\nveracity of the said allegation made by the Head Constable, according to the
\nHon’ble Supreme Court, the investigation should have been done by some other
\nindependent officer. But in the case on hand, the Investigating Officer
\ncollected information from other sources and he registered the case on the basis
\nof the same. Though technically, he is the complainant, he cannot be equated to
\nthe Head Constable mentioned in the reported case, whose position as I have
\nreferred above is totally different. Therefore, the view expressed in the said
\njudgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case.\n<\/p>\n
\t19.The other judgment in  Megha Singh v. State of Haryana<\/a> (cited supra),
\nalso is not applicable to the facts of the present case since, in that case
\nalso, the police officer who lodged the complaint and investigated the case
\nhimself happened to be an eye witness and also a victim of the terrorists
\nactivities of the accused.\n<\/p>\n
\t20.In State v. V.Jayapaul (2004 (5) SCC 223), while dealing with a case
\nunder the Act, the the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph No.4 has held as
\nfollows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t“There is nothing in the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code which
\nprecluded the appellant from taking up the investigation. The fact that the said
\npolice officer prepared the FIR on the basis of the information received by him
\nand registered the suspected crime does not disqualify him from taking up the
\ninvestigation of the cognisable offence. A suo motu  move on the part of the
\npolice officer to investigate a cognizable offence impelled by the information
\nreceived from some sources is not outside the purview of the provisions
\ncontained in Sections 154 to 157 of the Code or any other provisions of the
\nCode.”\n<\/p>\n
\t21.In the instant case also, the police officer namely, Mr.Venugopal,
\nreceived certain informations and formally prepared F.I.R., and then started the
\ninvestigation. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, there is no illegality on
\nthe part of Mr.Venugopal, and he did not stand disqualified to investigate and
\nalso to submit the final report to the Court. In view of the settled position of
\nlaw, the first ground raised by the petitioner is not tenable and the same is
\nrejected.\n<\/p>\n
\t22.The next ground raised by the petitioner is that, the investigation was
\nnot done by the officer duly authorised under Section 17 of the Act. But, the
\nlearned Government Advocate (Crl side) would submit that under Section 17 of the
\nAct, the Government has issued an Order in G.O.Ms.No.269\/1990 dated 04.06.1990
\nauthorising all the Inspectors of Police of the Directorate Vigilance and Anti-
\nCorruption to exercise the power of investigation including the power of arrest.
\nThe said G.O., came to be considered by this Court in Sebastin, R. v. State
\n(2002 (4) CTC 200). In the said judgment, the power of the Inspector of Police
\nattached to Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption to investigate the case
\nhas been upheld in view of G.O.Ms.No.269\/1990. So, the said contention is also
\nrejected.\n<\/p>\n
\t23.The learned counsel submitted that F.I.R., in this case had been
\nregistered in hasty without any preliminary enquiry and so the prosecution is
\nirregular and thus vitiated. The learned counsel would rely on the judgment in
\nP.Srirajuddin v. State of Madras (AIR<\/a> 1971 SC 520) wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme
\nCourt has held that, normally before lodging F.I.R., against any public servant
\nunder the Act, there has to be a preliminary enquiry held by the authorities.
\nHowever, in the case on hand, a perusal of the records would show that
\npreliminary enquiry was in fact held before lodging the F.I.R.,  which revealed
\ncommission of offence by the accused and the subsequent investigation also
\nconfirmed the same. On the said report, the trial Court has found prima facie
\ncase against the petitioner to take cognizance. When that be so, the contentions
\nof the learned counsel for the petitioner that, for want of preliminary enquiry,
\nthe criminal proceedings are to be quashed cannot be accepted.\n<\/p>\n
\t24.The next ground is in respect of the sanction order. According to the
\npetitioner,  the sanction order was issued by causing inordinate and unexplained
\ndelay. The Investigation Report was issued on 09.09.1998 and the same was placed
\nbefore the sanctioning authority only on 25.09.1998. However, the sanction order
\nwas issued belatedly on 25.03.1999 with a delay of about 6 months. The learned
\ncounsel would rely on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court  in Ramanand
\nChaudhary v. State of Bihar (AIR<\/a> 1994 SC 948) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court
\nhas held that the delay in taking action for 13 years was an infirmity. The
\nother judgment relied on by the learned counsel is in P.Ramachandra Rao v. State
\nof Karnataka<\/a> (2002 SCC (Cri)830), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held
\nthat inordinate delay is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
\nBut in our case, as stated above, there is no such enormous delay so as to hold
\nthat the fundamental rights of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution
\nof India have been violated.\n<\/p>\n
\t25.Yet another judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the
\npetitioner is in V.Venugopal & others v. State, by Inspector of Police, Vellore
\n(1991 L.W. (Cri) 516). That is also a case where the delay was inordinate.\n<\/p>\n
\t26.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Seetha Hemachandra Shashittal v. State of
\nMaharashtra (2001 (4) SCC 525) has held as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t“The delay of two years taken for obtaining sanction from the Government
\ncannot be attributed to the investigating officers. Though the said time of two
\nyears for the Government to decide the question of giving sanction cannot be
\napproved, but considering the number of desks over which the matter had to pass
\nand the voluminous records to be studied at all levels, the said interval cannot
\nbe said to be so unreasonably long as to affect the fundamental right of the
\nappellants. The charge-sheet was laid within a few days of obtaining the
\nsanction. Therefore, the criminal prosecution cannot be quashed merely on the
\nground of delay highlighted by the appellants.”\n<\/p>\n
(Emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
In view of the said legal position, merely on the ground of delay as contended
\nby the learned counsel for the petitioner, the proceedings cannot be quashed.\n<\/p>\n
\t27.The next contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is
\nthat, a reading of the sanction order would show total non application of mind
\non the part of the sanctioning authority. During argument, the learned counsel
\nhas taken me through the entire sanction order and he has pointed out certain
\ndefects. The question now is whether the criminal prosecution can be quashed on
\nthe ground of certain defects in the sanction order reflecting non application
\nof mind on the part of the sanctioning authority.\n<\/p>\n
\t28.The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
\nin Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat (AIR<\/a> 1997 SC 3400) and in
\nCharles Waker Devadas v. State by the Inspector of Police, etc., (1993 L.W.
\n(cri) 346). In those two judgments on the ground of defects in the sanction
\norder, reflecting non application of mind on the part of the sanctioning
\nauthority, the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court have held that the
\nsanction order is vitiated. But it is to be remembered that in those two cases,
\nthe trial went on during which, the sanctioning authority was examined. From the
\nevidence of sanctioning authority, and by reading the sanction order, the Courts
\nhave found that there was non application of mind on the part of the sanctioning
\nauthority and on that ground acquitted the accused. But, in the instant case,
\nthere is no such evidence let in so far. By merely reading the sanction order,
\nit cannot be now concluded that it is defective for want of application of mind.\n<\/p>\n
\t29.In State v. T.Venkatesh Murthy<\/a> (2004 (7) SCC 763) the Hon’ble Supreme
\nCourt  has held as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t“Clause (b) of sub-section (3) shows that no court shall stay the
\nproceedings under the Act on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity
\nin the sanction granted by the authority, unless it is satisfied that such
\nerror, omission or irregularity has resulted a failure of justice.\n<\/p>\n
\tSub-section (4) postulates that in determining under sub-section (3)
\nwhether the absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in the sanction
\nhas occasioned or resulted in a failure of justice, the court shall have regard
\nto the fact whether the objection could and should have been raised at any
\nearlier stage in the proceedings.”\n<\/p>\n
\t30.Similar view has been expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
\nC.S.Krishnamurthy v. State of Karnataka (2005 (4) SCC 81) wherein, it has been
\nheld as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t“The sanction order should speak for itself and in case the facts do not
\nso appear, it should be proved by leading evidence that all the particulars were
\nplaced before the sanctioning authority for due application of mind. But, when
\nthe sanction order itself is eloquent enough, then in that case only formal
\nevidence has to be produced by the sanctioning authority or by any other
\nevidence that the sanction was accorded by a competent person with due
\napplication of mind in case the sanction speaks for itself then the satisfaction
\nof the sanctioning  authority is apparent by reading the order. When the
\nsanction itself is very expressive, then in that case, the argument that
\nparticular material was not properly placed before the sanctioning authority for
\naccording sanction and the sanctioning authority has not applied its mind
\nbecomes unsustainable.”\n<\/p>\n
\t31.A close scrutiny of the above two judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme
\nCourt would make it abundantly clear that normally, the sanction order should be
\nso exhaustive to reflect the application of mind on the part of the sanctioning
\nauthority. If it is not so exhaustive, to indicate the application of mind, even
\nthen the sanctioning authority, as a witness can speak about the materials
\nplaced before him and about the satisfaction arrived at by him. Therefore,
\nsimply by reading the sanctioning order, one cannot say that the sanctioning
\nauthority had non application of mind while issuing sanction order. Thus, the
\nprosecution cannot be quashed at its threshold itself on the ground of defects
\nin the sanction order without affording opportunity to the sanctioning authority
\nto let in oral evidence.\n<\/p>\n
\t32.The next point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is also
\nin respect of the sanction order. According to him, on completing investigation,
\nthe papers were placed before one Mr.S.Venkataraman, the then Legal Advisor,
\nVigilance and Anti Corruption Department. On perusing the records,
\nMr.S.Venkataraman had opined that it is not a fit case for prosecution and had
\nfurther opined that the officers could be dealt with departmentally. A copy of
\nthe said opinion has been duly furnished to the petitioner under Section 207
\nCr.P.C. Relying on the said document, the learned counsel would submit that had
\nthe said document been placed before the sanctioning authority, the sanctioning
\nauthority would have taken a different view of the matter and would have
\nrefrained from giving sanction. Therefore, according to the learned counsel,
\nwithholding such a vital document vitiates the sanction order and therefore, the
\nprosecution case should be quashed.\n<\/p>\n
\t33.The learned counsel would rely on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
\nCourt  in R.Sarala v. T.S.Velu<\/a> (2000 SCC (Cri) 823), in support of the said
\ncontention. I have carefully gone through the said judgment. In my considered
\nopinion, at this stage, I cannot hold that the sanctioning authority would have
\ndeclined to grant sanction had the legal opinion been placed before him. Even
\nafter looking into the said document, there is possibility that the sanctioning
\nauthority would have granted sanction. Therefore, to test the satisfaction of
\nthe sanctioning authority, in my considered opinion, the sanctioning authority
\nis to be examined before the Court as a witness so as to afford an opportunity
\nto explain to the Court as to how he got satisfied and on what materials he has
\ngiven sanction.\n<\/p>\n
\t34.A close scrutiny of the materials available on record clearly shows
\nthat there is a prima facie case against the petitioner warranting trial. The
\ncontention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no case made
\nout warranting trial is not tenable and the same is, therefore, rejected.\n<\/p>\n
\t35.Lastly, the learned counsel submitted that though the present original
\npetition has been pending, before this Court, the trial Court proceeded with the
\ntrial and has examined the first witness as P.W.1 which according to him,
\namounts to an interference with the proceedings of this Court and the same
\namounts to clear contempt warranting initiation of action against the
\nInvestigating Officer and the Public Prosecutor.\n<\/p>\n
\t36.In my considered opinion, the said request is forfetched. Section 19 of
\nthe Act, makes it very clear that the stay of the proceedings can be granted
\nonly in very exceptional cases and in general, there shall not be any stay of
\nproceedings. When that be so, in my considered opinion, proceeding with the
\ntrial of the case by the trial Court would not amount to any interference to the
\nproceedings of this Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t37.In State of M.P v. Ram Singh (2000 (5) SCC 88) while dealing with a
\ncase under Section 13(1)(e) and 13 (2) of the Act, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
\nissued guidelines as to how the provisions of the Act, are to be dealt with and
\nas to how the cases are to be decided. In paragraph Nos.10 and 11 of the
\njudgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court  has held as follows:-
\n\t“The Act was intended to make effective provisions for the prevention of
\nbribery and corruption rampant amongst the public servants. It is a social
\nlegislation intended to curb illegal activities of the public servants and is
\ndesigned to be liberally construed so as to advance its object. Procedural
\ndelays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the object
\nsought to be achieved by the  Act. The overall public interest and the social
\nobject is required to be kept in mind while interpreting various provisions of
\nthe Act and deciding cases under it.”\n<\/p>\n
\t38.In the case on hand, as narrated above, the grounds raised are either
\non procedural delay or on technicalities of law. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme
\nCourt, such procedural delay and technicalities of law should not be permitted
\nto defeat the object sought to be achieved by the said Act. In paragraph No.15
\nof the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court  has made the following
\nobservations:-\n<\/p>\n
\t“The High Court was not right in holding that merely because the order of
\nthe Superintendent of Police was in typed proforma that showed the non-
\napplication of mind or could be held to have been passed in a mechanical and
\ncasual manner. The order rather clearly indicates the name of the accused, the
\nnumber of the F.I.R., the nature of the offence and power of the Superintendent
\nof Police permitting him to authorise a junior officer to investigate. The time
\nbetween the registration of the F.I.R., and authorisation in terms of the second
\nproviso to Section 17 shows further the application of mind and the
\ncircumstances which weighed with the Superintendent of Police to pass the
\norder.”\n<\/p>\n
\t39.In the instant case also, the sanction order contains all these details
\nand therefore, it cannot be held at the preliminary stage itself that the
\nsanction order was issued in a mechanical and casual manner reflecting the total
\nnon application of mind. In paragraph No.8 of the said judgment, the Hon’ble
\nSupreme Court has held as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t“Corruption in a civilised society is a disease like cancer, which if not
\ndetected in time, is sure to maliganise (sic) the polity of the country leading
\nto disastrous consequences. It is
\ntermed as a plague which is not only contagious but if not controlled spreads
\nlike a fire in a jungle. Its virus is compared with HIV leading to AIDS, being
\nincurable. It has also been termed as royal thievery. The socio-political system
\nexposed to such a dreaded communicable disease is likely to crumble under its
\nown weight. Corruption is opposed to democracy and social order, being not only
\nanti-people, but aimed and targeted against them. It affects the economy and
\ndestroys the cultural heritage. Unless nipped in the bud at the earliest, it is
\nlikely to cause turbulence – shaking of the socio-economic-political system in
\nan otherwise healthy, wealthy, effective and vibrating society.”\n<\/p>\n
\t40.Keeping all the above guiding principles and the law laid down by the
\nHon’ble Supreme Court, having considered all the points raised by the learned
\ncounsel for the petitioner, I am of the clear view that this is not a fit case
\nto quash the proceedings. However, the petitioner is at liberty to raise all the
\npoints raised in this petition before the trial Court at the appropriate stage
\nof the trial of the case.\n<\/p>\n
\t41.In the result, the criminal original petition is dismissed. It is made
\nclear that the trial Court should not get influenced by any of the observations
\nmade in this order while deciding the case on trial. The trial Court shall
\ndispose of the case strictly in accordance with law as expeditiously as
\npossible.\n<\/p>\n
jbm<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.The Inspector of Police,
\nVigilance and Anti-corruption,
\nMadurai Detachment,
\nNo.24, Kamala Iind Street,
\nChinnachokikulam,
\nMadurai – 625 002.\n<\/p>\n
2.The I Additional District Judge cum
\nChief Judicial Magistrate,
\nMadurai.\n<\/p>\n
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
\nMadurai Bench of Madras High Court,
\nMadurai.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court S.Irudhayam vs The State on 2 November, 2007 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 02\/11\/2007 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU Criminal Original Petition No.8157 of 2001 and Crl.M.P.No.10601 of 1999 S.Irudhayam .. Petitioner Vs. The State Represented by The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-corruption, Madurai Detachment, No.24, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-66442","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nS.Irudhayam vs The State on 2 November, 2007 - 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\/s-irudhayam-vs-the-state-on-2-november-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"S.Irudhayam vs The State on 2 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-irudhayam-vs-the-state-on-2-november-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-11-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-14T10:31:34+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=\"25 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-irudhayam-vs-the-state-on-2-november-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-irudhayam-vs-the-state-on-2-november-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"S.Irudhayam vs The State on 2 November, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-11-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-14T10:31:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-irudhayam-vs-the-state-on-2-november-2007\"},\"wordCount\":4997,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-irudhayam-vs-the-state-on-2-november-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-irudhayam-vs-the-state-on-2-november-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-irudhayam-vs-the-state-on-2-november-2007\",\"name\":\"S.Irudhayam vs The State on 2 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-11-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-14T10:31:34+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-irudhayam-vs-the-state-on-2-november-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-irudhayam-vs-the-state-on-2-november-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-irudhayam-vs-the-state-on-2-november-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"S.Irudhayam vs The State on 2 November, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"S.Irudhayam vs The State on 2 November, 2007 - 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\/s-irudhayam-vs-the-state-on-2-november-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"S.Irudhayam vs The State on 2 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-irudhayam-vs-the-state-on-2-november-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-11-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-14T10:31:34+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":"25 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-irudhayam-vs-the-state-on-2-november-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-irudhayam-vs-the-state-on-2-november-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"S.Irudhayam vs The State on 2 November, 2007","datePublished":"2007-11-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-14T10:31:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-irudhayam-vs-the-state-on-2-november-2007"},"wordCount":4997,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-irudhayam-vs-the-state-on-2-november-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-irudhayam-vs-the-state-on-2-november-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-irudhayam-vs-the-state-on-2-november-2007","name":"S.Irudhayam vs The State on 2 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-11-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-14T10:31:34+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-irudhayam-vs-the-state-on-2-november-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-irudhayam-vs-the-state-on-2-november-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-irudhayam-vs-the-state-on-2-november-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"S.Irudhayam vs The State on 2 November, 2007"}]},{"@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\/66442","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=66442"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66442\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=66442"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=66442"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=66442"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}