{"id":67807,"date":"2011-03-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-03-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-vinoskumar-ramachandran-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-march-2011"},"modified":"2018-07-20T10:09:01","modified_gmt":"2018-07-20T04:39:01","slug":"mr-vinoskumar-ramachandran-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-march-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-vinoskumar-ramachandran-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-march-2011","title":{"rendered":"Mr.Vinoskumar Ramachandran … vs The State Of Maharashtra on 18 March, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Mr.Vinoskumar Ramachandran … vs The State Of Maharashtra on 18 March, 2011<\/div>\n
Bench: B.H. Marlapalle, R. C. Chavan, R. S. Dalvi<\/div>\n
                                  1        Cri-Appln-4376-with-Cri-WP-1520\n\nPGK\n\n           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                                                    \n                CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n\n\n                                           \n             Criminal Application No.4376 of 2009\n\n\nMr.Vinoskumar Ramachandran Valluvar   ..         ..       Applicant\n\n\n\n\n                                          \n             V\/s.\nThe State of Maharashtra\n(Through Sr.P.I. Tardeo Police Station,\nMumbai vide C.R. No.7\/08)             ..         ..       Respondent\n\n\n\n\n                                     \n                           ig     WITH\n\n                 Criminal Writ Petition No.1520 of 2009\n                         \nEssar Logistics Ltd.         ..           ..     ..       Petitioner\n          v\/s.\n           \n\n    1.Vinoshkumar Ramchandran Valluvar\n        \n\n\n\n    2.State of Maharashtra                ..     ..       Respondents\n\n\nMr.Pavan S. Patil with Mr.Vishwajeet Mohite and Mr.Sandip\n\n\n\n\n\nBabar i\/by Mr.Abhay Ostwal for Applicant in Criminal\nApplication No.4376\/2009 and for Respondent No.2 in Writ\nPetition No.1520\/2009.\n\nMr.P.A. Pol, Government Pleader for Respondent No.1.\n\n\n\n\n\nMr.Mahesh Jethmalani with Mr.Pranav Badheka and Mr.Prashant\nPawar i\/by Mr.Rishi Bhuta and Mr.Manoj Khatri for\nPetitioner in Writ Petition No.1520\/2009 and Respondent No.\n2 in Criminal Application No.4376\/2009.\n\n\n\n\n                                            ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 17:07:17 :::\n                                   2           Cri-Appln-4376-with-Cri-WP-1520\n\n\n                                 CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE,\n                                         R.C. CHAVAN &\n\n\n\n\n                                                                       \n                                         SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, JJ.\n<\/pre>\n
Date of reserving the judgment           : 18th February 2011
\nDate of pronouncing the judgment         :   18th March 2011<\/p>\n
JUDGMENT : (SMT.ROSHAN DALVI,J.)<\/p>\n
    1.A short point of law under Section 102 of the Criminal<\/p>\n
      Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) is a part of this reference.
\n      The
\n      Police
\n            movable
\n                 Officer<\/p>\n
                      property
\n                           is
\n                                 being   a
\n                                  entitled
\n                                             bank
\n                                               to
\n                                                     account
\n                                                          seize
\n                                                                       which
\n                                                                           during
\n                                                                                     a<\/p>\n
      investigation is the subject-matter of the reference.
\n      The learned Single Judge (Bobde, J.) has formulated the
\n      question for reference thus:\n<\/p>\n
                Whether section 102 of the Code of Criminal
\n               Procedure requires the issuance of a notice to a
\n               person before or simultaneously with the action
\n               of attaching the Bank account?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    2.The case of State of Maharashtra vs. Tapas D. Neogy,<\/a>
\n      (1999)7 SCC 685 has settled the law relating to seizure
\n      of bank accounts. The bank accounts are held to be<\/p>\n
      property capable of seizure. We are called upon to
\n      answer the question under reference as to when the bank
\n      account is seized or sought to be seized, whether a
\n      notice to the person who is the account-holder, is<\/p>\n
                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:07:17 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 3               Cri-Appln-4376-with-Cri-WP-1520<\/p>\n
      required to be given before or at the time of such
\n      action of seizure.\n<\/p>\n
    3.The main contention on behalf of the person, whose bank<\/p>\n
      account is seized, is the right of natural justice
\n      the right of being heard and being informed of such an<\/p>\n
      action as an aspect of audi alteram partem doctrine. It
\n      is contended that his right of natural justice would be
\n      impinged, hampered, restricted and even denied if prior<\/p>\n
      to or at the time of the seizure of the bank account he
\n      is not given notice of the action. The main contention<\/p>\n
      on the part of the opponent is that the doctrine of
\n      audi alteram partem cannot be extended to a notice at<\/p>\n
      or before seizing of a bank account by a Police Officer
\n      as   it    is   a    part       of       an    act   of      an      officer           during<\/p>\n
      investigation which excludes the procedural requirement
\n      of the principle of giving notice as an incident of the<\/p>\n
      right of natural justice of a person. It is contended
\n      that      it    would          be        counter-productive                  and         self-\n<\/p>\n
      destructive         if    an    Investigating             Officer,           upon        being
\n      convinced       of       such       an    action      to        be      taken          during
\n      investigation under Section 102 of the Cr.P.C., would
\n      be enjoined to inform the party whose account is sought<\/p>\n
      to be frozen, of such an act. It is argued that by its
\n      very      nature         and    more          specially         in        the        current
\n      technological            set        up        of   banking           and         financial
\n      transactions any person even remotely can operate his<\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:07:17 :::<\/span>
\n                                     4           Cri-Appln-4376-with-Cri-WP-1520<\/p>\n
      account such as to withdraw or transfer its contents
\n      completely to thwart the Police action. Hence it is<\/p>\n
      contended that the notice at the time of freezing of
\n      the bank account or immediately prior thereto is not<\/p>\n
      required to be given.\n<\/p>\n
    4.The   action   of   seizing       a   movable     property,              which
\n      includes freezing of the bank account, is taken under
\n      Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. which runs thus:\n<\/p>\n
              102. Power of police officer to seize certain<\/p>\n
             property.- (1) Any police officer may seize any
\n             property which may be alleged or suspected to
\n             have been stolen, or which may be found under<\/p>\n
             circumstances which create suspicion of the
\n             commission of any offence.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             (2) Such police officer, if subordinate to the<\/p>\n
             officer in charge of a police station, shall
\n             forthwith report the seizure to that officer.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             (3) Every police officer acting under sub-
\n             section (1) shall forthwith report the seizure
\n             to the Magistrate having jurisdiction and where<\/p>\n
             the property seized is such that it cannot be
\n             conveniently transported to the Court or where
\n             there    is  difficulty    in     securing   proper
\n             accommodation for the custody of such property,
\n             or where the continued retention of the property<\/p>\n
             in   police  custody   may    not    be  considered
\n             necessary for the purpose of investigation, he
\n             may give custody thereof to any person on his
\n             executing a bond undertaking to produce the
\n             property before the Court as and when required
\n             and to give effect to the further orders of the
\n             Court as to the disposal of the same:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:07:18 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                         5              Cri-Appln-4376-with-Cri-WP-1520<\/p>\n
             Provided that where the property seized under
\n             sub-section (1) is subject to speedy and natural<\/p>\n
             decay and if the person entitled to the
\n             possession of such property is unknown or absent<\/p>\n
             and the value of such property is less than five
\n             hundred rupees, it may forthwith be sold by
\n             auction under the orders of the Superintendent
\n             of Police and the provisions of sections 457 and<\/p>\n
             458 shall, as nearly as may be practicable,
\n             apply to the net proceeds of such sale.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                      (Emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
     This is the stage of investigation. Just as much as the
\n     Investigating<\/p>\n
                        Officer    is        vested    with       the       powers          of
\n     seizing a movable property such as, for example, a<\/p>\n
     knife     used   during     the        commission       of      a      particular
\n     offence, he is invested with the like powers to seize
\n     the bank accounts. It need hardly be stated that for<\/p>\n
     each seizure of movable property, such as a knife, the<\/p>\n
     Investigating Officer is not required to inform any
\n     accused whose knife it would be, to inform him of his
\n     action either before or at the time of such seizure.\n<\/p>\n
     The argument relating to the notice is made typical for
\n     a bank account which has been held to be capable of
\n     seizure    by    freezing    in    the     case     of      Tapas        D. Neogy<\/p>\n
     (supra).\n<\/p>\n
    5.On behalf of Respondent No.1 in the above Petition,
\n     whose     bank   account     has        been   seized,          a      number          of
\n     judgments, not directly on this point, have been shown<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:07:18 :::<\/span>
\n                                              6               Cri-Appln-4376-with-Cri-WP-1520<\/p>\n
      to us.\n<\/p>\n
    6.In the case of Dr.Shashikant D. Karnik vs. State of
\n      Maharashtra,<\/a> 2008 Criminal Law Journal 148, it has been<\/p>\n
      held   that    the       provisions         of     Section       102       are       to     be
\n      complied      before          an     order       of    seizure           is       passed.\n<\/p>\n
      Consequently, the fact of seizure is required to be
\n      communicated or reported to the relevant Magistrate. In
\n      that case, it was argued that the notice was required<\/p>\n
      to be given to the Petitioner whose account was sought
\n      to be seized because it would affect him adversely. It<\/p>\n
      was argued that in such a case the Petitioner would
\n      withdraw      all       the       amounts    and      hence     it      was       further<\/p>\n
      argued that the notice could have been given to him and
\n      attachment         of     the       account        could      have         been         made<\/p>\n
      simultaneously.              In     that    case,      the       Division             Bench
\n      allowed      the    Petition          upon       noticing        four         essential<\/p>\n
      requirements            of        Section        102     breached               by        the
\n      Investigating Officer.\n<\/p>\n
    7.In the case of R. Chandrasekar vs. Inspector of Police,
\n      Salem, 2003 Criminal Law Journal 294, the Petitioner
\n      challenged the order of freezing his bank account as he<\/p>\n
      was    not   served          any    prohibitory         order       but       was       only
\n      intimated by his bankers about the action. The accounts
\n      came to be frozen upon a confessional statement made by
\n      the accused relating to a transaction the accused had<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:07:18 :::<\/span>
\n                                             7                Cri-Appln-4376-with-Cri-WP-1520<\/p>\n
    with the Petitioner. The Petitioner was not at all
\n    involved in the case nor had anything to do with the<\/p>\n
    business       of    the    accused.        The     accused           had        collected
\n    deposits from various persons and had failed to repay.\n<\/p>\n
    He was charged with offences under Sections 465, 468,
\n    471,     420    and       120    of     the       Indian       Penal          Code.         His<\/p>\n
    confessional          statement        showed       that        the       Petitioner s
\n    father     had       received      Rs.5       Lakhs        and       certain            other
\n    amounts from him. It was observed that that was not a<\/p>\n
    case     of    discovery          of    property.           That         had        created
\n    suspicion that an offence was committed. There were no<\/p>\n
    circumstances attendant upon the bank account or its
\n    operation that have led the Police to suspect that some<\/p>\n
    offence had been committed. The bank account was a
\n    sequel    to        the    discovery        of     the      commission              of      the<\/p>\n
    offence.       Hence       it    was    held      in     paragraph             9    of      the
\n    judgment       that       that    was       not     sufficient              to      attract<\/p>\n
    Section 102 of the Cr.P.C., though it was sought to be
\n    shown by the Investigating Officer that some funds were<\/p>\n
    suspected to be transferred by the Petitioner s father
\n    to the Petitioner s bank account. It was held that such
\n    a suspicion could have been verified by comparison of
\n    the    entries       in    the    two       accounts        and       that         did      not<\/p>\n
    justify freezing of the account of the Petitioner at
\n    all. It was held in paragraph 11 of the judgment that
\n    mandatory        requirement           of     Section           102        of       Cr.P.C.
\n    enjoining the Police Officer to report the seizure to<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:07:18 :::<\/span>
\n                                          8             Cri-Appln-4376-with-Cri-WP-1520<\/p>\n
      the Magistrate and to give notice to the Petitioner and
\n      to allow him to operate the bank account subject to<\/p>\n
      executing a bond undertaking to produce the amount in
\n      Court    when    required     not      having    been          given         and       the<\/p>\n
      prohibitory order not served upon the Petitioner, the
\n      action under Section 102 was illegal.\n<\/p>\n
    8.In the case of Rajamani vs. Inspector of Police, Salem,
\n      2003 Criminal Law Journal 2902, the bank account of a<\/p>\n
      third party was sought to be frozen. The nexus between
\n      the account of the third party and the alleged offence<\/p>\n
      was     not    established.    The       seizure           was       held        to      be
\n      illegal.\n<\/p>\n
    9.In     the    case    of   Padmini      vs.     Inspector              of      Police,<\/p>\n
      Tirunelveli, 2008(3) Crimes 716 (Mad.) following the
\n      case of       R. Chandrasekar (supra), it was held that when<\/p>\n
      no report was made to the Magistrate of the seizure and
\n      when     at    that    time   no       notice    was          issued           to      the<\/p>\n
      Petitioner, the seizure could not be justified.\n<\/p>\n
    10.In the case of B. Ranganathan vs. State, 2003 Criminal
\n      Law Journal 2779 when the bank account not only of the<\/p>\n
      accused but other members of his family was seized
\n      without following the procedure under Section 102 of
\n      Cr.P.C.       requiring    information          to      be      given          to      the
\n      concerned      Magistrate     with      notice        of     seizure           to      the<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:07:18 :::<\/span>
\n                                  9         Cri-Appln-4376-with-Cri-WP-1520<\/p>\n
      accused, the seizure itself was held to be bad. In this
\n      case, there was no authority granted to freeze the bank<\/p>\n
      account by the Superintendent of Police.\n<\/p>\n
    11.A reading of the aforesaid judgments shows that when
\n      the seizure is challenged it may be held to be invalid<\/p>\n
      if the requirements of Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. are
\n      not followed by the Investigating Officer or if, based
\n      upon the facts of the case, the account of the account<\/p>\n
      holder   may   be   held   not   prone       to       seizure.             The
\n      consideration of issuing the notice, if any, was at the<\/p>\n
      time the seizure was to be reported to the Magistrate
\n      and not before or at the time of seizure itself.\n<\/p>\n
    12.It may be mentioned that Section 102 requires the<\/p>\n
      Police Officer to report the seizure to the Magistrate
\n      having jurisdiction or to his immediate superior. It<\/p>\n
      may also be mentioned that Section 102 mandated the
\n      execution of the bond undertaking in case of a seized<\/p>\n
      property which cannot be conveniently transported to
\n      the Court so that custody of it could be given to the
\n      person from whom it is seized upon the execution of the
\n      bond to produce the property when required before the<\/p>\n
      Court. In a case where the discovery of the account did
\n      not create suspicion of the commission of the offence
\n      the seizure itself was held unjustified.\n<\/p>\n
                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:07:18 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                               10               Cri-Appln-4376-with-Cri-WP-1520<\/p>\n
    13.In the case of Swaran Sabharwal vs. Commissioner of
\n      Police, 1988 Criminal Law Journal 241, which preceded<\/p>\n
      the the case of Tapas D. Neogy (supra), the question
\n      relating to whether the bank account was property was<\/p>\n
      inter alia considered which has later been settled in
\n      the case of Tapas D. Neogy (supra).<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n                                                              \n    14.The relevant words in Section 102(2)(3)                                     report the\n      seizure          specifically           show      that      the        seizure            duly\n\n\n\n\n                                                   \n      effected         has    to    be    reported       thereafter              (1)      to      the\n      officer      and       (2)    to\n                                     ig   the      Magistrate.          The       conjunction\n       and        in   Section       102(3)        shows   the         two-fold             action\n<\/pre>\n
      required of the Investigating Officer (1) to report the<\/p>\n
      seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction and (2)
\n      when the property is seized is not transportable to<\/p>\n
      give custody to any person upon executing a bond. Sub-
\n      section (3) though requires the Investigating Officer<\/p>\n
      to report the seizure to the Magistrate does not enjoin
\n      him    to    inform,         intimate        or   report       the       fact        to     any<\/p>\n
      accused      or    any       other      person     whose        bank        account           is
\n      frozen or whose property is seized.\n<\/p>\n
    15.Our    attention            has    been     rightly        drawn         by      the       Ld.\n<\/p>\n
      Counsel      on    behalf          of   Respondent         No.1       in       the      above
\n      Petition to the case of Gurudevdatta Vksss Maryadit vs.
\n      State of Maharashtra,<\/a> (2001) 4 SCC 534, which lays down
\n      the elementary rule of literal interpretation of the<\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:07:18 :::<\/span>
\n                                          11          Cri-Appln-4376-with-Cri-WP-1520<\/p>\n
      plain     meaning     of     a    Statute     which       is       clear          and
\n      unambiguous          such a provision has to be given its<\/p>\n
      plain meaning. No further words are required to be
\n      imported therein. Each word is required to be given<\/p>\n
      effect to. Consequently, in Section 102(2)(3) the word
\n       report       must   relate       only   to   the      two        authorities<\/p>\n
      mentioned in the aforesaid two sub-sections and none
\n      else.\n<\/p>\n
    16.The Learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner
\n      drew    our   attention ig   to    the   judgment      in      the      case        of
\n      Unique    Butyle      Tube       Industries    (P)       Ltd.        vs.        U.P.
\n      Financial Corporation,<\/a> (2003) 2 SCC 455, which mandates<\/p>\n
      a Court not to read anything into a statutory provision
\n      which is plain and unambiguous. It observes thus:\n<\/p>\n
                  A statute is an edict of the legislature. The<\/p>\n
                 language   employed   in   a   statute is  the
\n                 determinative factor of legislative intent.
\n                 The first and primary rule of construction is
\n                 that the intention of the legislation must be<\/p>\n
                 found in the words used by the legislature
\n                 itself. The question is not what may be
\n                 supposed and has been intended but what has
\n                 been said, Statutes should be construed, not
\n                 as theorems of Euclid , Judge Learned Hand<\/p>\n
                 said, but words must be construed with some
\n                 imagination of the purposes which lie behind
\n                 them .   (See   Lenigh   Valley   Coal Co.  v.
\n                 Yensavage.) This view was reiterated in Union
\n                 of India v. Filip Tiago De Gama of Vedem Vasco
\n                 De Gama (SCC<\/a> p.284, para 16).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:07:18 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                         12                Cri-Appln-4376-with-Cri-WP-1520<\/p>\n
                  The legislative casus omissus cannot be
\n                 supplied by judicial interpretative process.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    17.The judgment, upon which the point of reference can<\/p>\n
    be fully answered relied upon by the learned Senior
\n    Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner, is the case of
\n    Union of India vs. W.N. Chadha, AIR<\/a> 1993 SC 1082. The<\/p>\n
    case related to freezing of account in Swiss Bank under
\n    a Letter Rogatory. In that case, the Letters Rogatory
\n    were sought to be issued upon a Swiss Bank to freeze a<\/p>\n
    particular account by the Special Judge, CBI. This was
\n    without      notice<\/p>\n
                             to    the        account-holder.\n<\/p>\n
    principle of audi alteram partem and upon the premise
\n                                                                                Upon         the<\/p>\n
    that    no   one   was   to    be    condemned           unheard           under         the
\n    humanising     principle       of        law    and    fairness            to      secure
\n    justice, the High Court sought to set aside the Letters<\/p>\n
    Rogatory.      That      was    the            investigating               stage           of<\/p>\n
    collecting evidence. It was contended that the accused
\n    had no right to control or interfere in any manner with
\n    the evidence which was to be collected and, therefore,<\/p>\n
    that, by its very nature, could not affect any right of
\n    an accused giving the accused the extension of the rule
\n    of audi alteram partem at that stage. In paragraphs 77,<\/p>\n
    78, 79, 80 and 81 of the judgment, it has been observed
\n    thus:\n<\/p>\n
                  77. The rule of audi alteram partem is not
\n                 attracted unless the impugned order is shown
\n                 to have deprived a person of his liberty or<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:07:18 :::<\/span>
\n                     13        Cri-Appln-4376-with-Cri-WP-1520<\/p>\n
     his property. In the present case, no such
\n     consequences have arisen from the letter
\n     rogatory. If the letter rogatory is accepted<\/p>\n
     by the foreign Court and acted upon it will
\n     then disclose only the relevant facts about<\/p>\n
     the identity of the account holders, quantum
\n     of the amounts standing in the names of the
\n     individual account holders representing the
\n     credit of Bofors money and the nature of such<\/p>\n
     accounts. The follow up consequences would be
\n     that the corpus of the offence would be
\n     preserved    intact   from    preventing   the
\n     withdrawal of the money from those accounts or
\n     closure of the accounts by the account holders<\/p>\n
     till the merit of the case is decided.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     78. In fact the Special Judge in Delhi is not
\n     possessed with any power or authority to
\n     deprive the liberty of the respondent residing<\/p>\n
     out of the jurisdiction of Indian Courts and
\n     having his property in question in a foreign
\n     country. Only in case where a public officer
\n     has got such a power, the question of fair<\/p>\n
     play in action will be attracted. This rule
\n     was explained by Lord Denning M.R. in Schmidt<\/p>\n
     v. Secretary of State of Home Affairs (1969) 2
\n     Chancery Division 149 stating that    where a
\n     public officer has power to deprive a person
\n     of his liberty or his property, the general<\/p>\n
     principle is that it has not to be done
\n     without his being given an opportunity of
\n     being heard and of making representations on
\n     his own behalf.\n<\/p>\n
     79. The above explanation is quoted in Maneka
\n     Gandhi (AIR 1978 SC 597).\n<\/p>\n
     80. The rule of audi alteram partem is a rule
\n     of justice and its application is excluded
\n     where the rule will itself lead to injustice.
\n     In   A.S.  de  Smith s  Judicial   Review  of<\/p>\n
                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:07:18 :::<\/span>
\n                             14        Cri-Appln-4376-with-Cri-WP-1520<\/p>\n
            Administrative Action, 4th Ed. at page 184, it
\n            is stated that in administrative law, a prima
\n            facie right to prior notice and opportunity to<\/p>\n
            be heard may be held to be excluded by
\n            implication in the presence of some factors,<\/p>\n
            singly or in combination with another. Those
\n            special factors are mentioned under items (1)
\n            to (10) under the heading Exclusion of the
\n            audi alteram partem rule .\n<\/p>\n
            81.   Thus,   there   is   exclusion    of   the
\n            application of audi alteram partem rule to
\n            cases where nothing unfair can be inferred by
\n            not affording an opportunity to present and<\/p>\n
            meet a case. This rule cannot be applied to
\n            defeat the ends of justice or to make the law<\/p>\n
             lifeless,   absurd,   stultifying   and   self-
\n            defeating or plainly contrary to the common
\n            sense of the situation and this rule may be<\/p>\n
            jettisoned in very exceptional circumstances
\n            where compulsive necessity so demands.\n<\/p>\n
    Hence it was observed that:\n<\/p>\n
             89. …… when the investigating officer is
\n            not deciding any matter except collecting the
\n            materials for ascertaining whether a prima<\/p>\n
            facie case is made out or not and a full
\n            enquiry in case of filing a report under S.
\n            173(2) follows in a trial before the Court or
\n            Tribunal pursuant to the filing of the report,
\n            it cannot be said that at that stage rule of<\/p>\n
            audi alteram partem superimposes an obligation
\n            to issue a prior notice and hear the accused
\n            which   the   statute   does   not   expressly
\n            recognise. The question is not whether audi
\n            alteram partem is implicit, but where the
\n            occasion for its attraction exists at all.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:07:18 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                  15         Cri-Appln-4376-with-Cri-WP-1520<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             90. Under the scheme of Chap.XII of the Code
\n             of Criminal Procedure, there are various
\n             provisions under which no prior notice or<\/p>\n
             opportunity of being heard is conferred as a
\n             matter of course to an accused person while<\/p>\n
             the proceeding is in the stage of an
\n             investigation by a police officer.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                           (Emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
    Further upon considering the case of State of Haryana
\n    v. Bhajan Lal,<\/a> 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335 at 359 upon citing<\/p>\n
    the   decision   of   the   Privy   Council     in     the       case        of
\n    Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad, AIR<\/a> 1945 PC 18, the<\/p>\n
    Supreme Court while distinguishing the right of the
\n    accused to hearing under specific Sections 227, 228,<\/p>\n
    239, 235 and 248 of the Cr.P.C. observed thus:\n<\/p>\n
              91. …… the field of investigation of any
\n             cognizable offence is exclusively within the<\/p>\n
             domain of the investigating agencies over
\n             which the Courts cannot have control and have
\n             no power to stifle or impinge upon the
\n             proceedings in the investigation so long as<\/p>\n
             the investigation proceeds in compliance with
\n             the        provisions       relating       to
\n             investigation……\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              92. More so, the accused has no right to have<\/p>\n
             any say as regards the manner and method of
\n             investigation. Save under certain exceptions
\n             under the entire scheme of the Code, the
\n             accused has no participation as a matter of
\n             right during the course of the investigation
\n             of a case instituted on a police report till
\n             the investigation culminates in filing of a<\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:07:18 :::<\/span>
\n                                       16            Cri-Appln-4376-with-Cri-WP-1520<\/p>\n
               final report under S.173(2) of the Code or in
\n               a proceeding instituted otherwise than on a
\n               police report till the process is issued under<\/p>\n
               S.204 of the Code, as the case may be.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    The   Court      observed      that     under   Chapter            XII,        which
\n    related to investigation, the accused had no right of
\n    prior notice or hearing as that part of the Code was<\/p>\n
     silent in this respect . The Court further laid down
\n    the object why it was so and that was to preserve
\n    secrecy    in    the    mode    of     investigation         lest        valuable<\/p>\n
    evidence would be lost. The Court further distinguished<\/p>\n
    the aspect of attachment of money of the accused and
\n    freezing        of     the     accounts     during          investigation.\n<\/p>\n
    Considering that opportunity of hearing to be given to
\n    the accused before taking action would frustrate the
\n    proceeding, obstruct the action, defeat the ends of<\/p>\n
    justice and make the provisions of law relating to<\/p>\n
    investigation lifeless, absurd and self-defeating, it
\n    set out the total lack of statutory obligations in that
\n    behalf.\n<\/p>\n
    18.It is, therefore, clear that like any other property
\n    a bank account is freezable. Freezing the account is an<\/p>\n
    act in investigation. Like any other act, it commands
\n    and behoves secrecy to preserve the evidence. It does
\n    not deprive any person of his liberty or his property.
\n    It is necessarily temporary i.e. till the merit of the
\n    case is decided. It clothes the Investigating Officers<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:07:18 :::<\/span>
\n                                        17            Cri-Appln-4376-with-Cri-WP-1520<\/p>\n
    with the power to preserve a property suspected to have
\n    been   used   in       the   commission     of    the      offence           in     any<\/p>\n
    manner.     The    property,        therefore,          requires             to       be
\n    protected from dissemination, depletion or destruction<\/p>\n
    by any mode. Consequently, under the guise of being
\n    given information about the said action, no accused,<\/p>\n
    not even a third party, can overreach the law under the
\n    umbrella of a sublime provision meant to protect the
\n    innocent and preserve his property. It would indeed be<\/p>\n
    absurd to suggest that a person must be told that his
\n    bank account, which is suspected of having been used in<\/p>\n
    the commission of an offence by himself or even by
\n    another, is being frozen to allow him to have it closed<\/p>\n
    or to have its proceeds withdrawn or transferred upon
\n    such notice.\n<\/p>\n
    19.The question before us, therefore, is stark in its<\/p>\n
    framing. The word             before or simultaneously                       in the
\n    question specifically requires us to consider whether<\/p>\n
    before freezing the account or at the time of freezing
\n    the    account     a    notice     has    to     be     issued           upon       the
\n    concerned     person.        Our   answer      can     only         be      in      the
\n    negative. Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. does not require<\/p>\n
    issuance of notice to a person before or simultaneously
\n    with the action of attaching (his) bank account.                                      We
\n    answer accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:07:18 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                             18        Cri-Appln-4376-with-Cri-WP-1520<\/p>\n
    20.The above Criminal Application and the Criminal Writ
\n    Petition be sent to the concerned Court for disposal on<\/p>\n
    merits.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n                                 (B.H. MARLAPALLE,J.)\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n                                   (R.C. CHAVAN, J.)\n\n\n\n\n                                \n                      ig         (SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.)\n                    \n         \n      \n\n\n\n\n\n\n                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 17:07:18 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Mr.Vinoskumar Ramachandran … vs The State Of Maharashtra on 18 March, 2011 Bench: B.H. Marlapalle, R. C. Chavan, R. S. Dalvi 1 Cri-Appln-4376-with-Cri-WP-1520 PGK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Application No.4376 of 2009 Mr.Vinoskumar Ramachandran Valluvar .. .. Applicant V\/s. The State of Maharashtra (Through […]<\/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":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-67807","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMr.Vinoskumar Ramachandran ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 18 March, 2011 - 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\/mr-vinoskumar-ramachandran-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-march-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mr.Vinoskumar Ramachandran ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 18 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-vinoskumar-ramachandran-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-march-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-03-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-20T04:39:01+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=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-vinoskumar-ramachandran-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-march-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-vinoskumar-ramachandran-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-march-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mr.Vinoskumar Ramachandran … vs The State Of Maharashtra on 18 March, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-20T04:39:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-vinoskumar-ramachandran-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-march-2011\"},\"wordCount\":3733,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-vinoskumar-ramachandran-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-march-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-vinoskumar-ramachandran-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-march-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-vinoskumar-ramachandran-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-march-2011\",\"name\":\"Mr.Vinoskumar Ramachandran ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 18 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-20T04:39:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-vinoskumar-ramachandran-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-march-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-vinoskumar-ramachandran-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-march-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-vinoskumar-ramachandran-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-march-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mr.Vinoskumar Ramachandran … vs The State Of Maharashtra on 18 March, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Mr.Vinoskumar Ramachandran ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 18 March, 2011 - 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\/mr-vinoskumar-ramachandran-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-march-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mr.Vinoskumar Ramachandran ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 18 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-vinoskumar-ramachandran-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-march-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-03-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-20T04:39:01+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":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-vinoskumar-ramachandran-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-march-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-vinoskumar-ramachandran-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-march-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mr.Vinoskumar Ramachandran … vs The State Of Maharashtra on 18 March, 2011","datePublished":"2011-03-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-20T04:39:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-vinoskumar-ramachandran-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-march-2011"},"wordCount":3733,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-vinoskumar-ramachandran-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-march-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-vinoskumar-ramachandran-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-march-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-vinoskumar-ramachandran-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-march-2011","name":"Mr.Vinoskumar Ramachandran ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 18 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-03-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-20T04:39:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-vinoskumar-ramachandran-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-march-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-vinoskumar-ramachandran-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-march-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-vinoskumar-ramachandran-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-march-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mr.Vinoskumar Ramachandran … vs The State Of Maharashtra on 18 March, 2011"}]},{"@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\/67807","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=67807"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/67807\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=67807"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=67807"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=67807"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}