{"id":98269,"date":"2008-09-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashraf-vs-state-on-17-september-2008"},"modified":"2019-03-04T23:22:33","modified_gmt":"2019-03-04T17:52:33","slug":"ashraf-vs-state-on-17-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashraf-vs-state-on-17-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"Ashraf vs State on 17 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Kerala High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Ashraf vs State on 17 September, 2008<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCrl.Rev.Pet.No. 684 of 2001()\n\n\n\n1. ASHRAF\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. STATE,SHO PERINGOME,HIGH COURT,EKM.\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.RAJAGOPAL\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH\n\n Dated :17\/09\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                          THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.\n              - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                         Crl.R.P.No. 684 OF 2001\n              - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n              Dated this the 17th day of September, 2008\n\n                                    O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n<p>      The revision petitioner along with two others was charge<\/p>\n<p>sheeted by Peringom police in Crime No.98\/92 for the offence<\/p>\n<p>punishable under Section 379 read with Section 34 IPC on the<\/p>\n<p>allegation that on 08.04.92 at about 12 a.m. they, in furtherance of<\/p>\n<p>their common intention committed theft of 38 rubber sheets and<\/p>\n<p>28 Kgs of arecanuts from the property belonging to PW1. Since the<\/p>\n<p>1st accused was not available for trial, the case against him was split<\/p>\n<p>up. Revision Petitioner and the 3rd accused faced trial, were found<\/p>\n<p>guilty, convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for<\/p>\n<p>one year each.        They preferred appeal to the Sessions Court,<\/p>\n<p>Thalassery. The learned Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the<\/p>\n<p>conviction and sentence. Hence, this revision petition at the instance<\/p>\n<p>of the 3rd accused.\n<\/p>\n<p>      2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and<\/p>\n<p>learned Public Prosecutor.                Learned counsel submitted that<\/p>\n<p>conscious possession of the alleged stolen articles with the revision<\/p>\n<p>petitioner is not proved. It is also submitted that the courts below<\/p>\n<p>Crl.R.P. No.684\/2001<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   -:2:-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>were not correct in ignoring the evidence of DW1 to 3 which is<\/p>\n<p>supported by Ext.D1 series.\n<\/p>\n<p>       3. As against the version of the prosecution which I have stated<\/p>\n<p>above, the revision petitioner claimed that he, along with others was<\/p>\n<p>taken to custody by PW3, Sub Inspector, Payyannoor after about 4<\/p>\n<p>p.m. on 21.04.92. H claimed that on the alleged date of occurrence<\/p>\n<p>himself and others were working in the bus service belonging to<\/p>\n<p>DW1.      DWs 2 &amp; 3, employees in the said bus and DW1 were<\/p>\n<p>examined to prove that version.          They supported the revision<\/p>\n<p>petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>       4. Before going to the evidence rendered by DWs 1 to 3, it is<\/p>\n<p>necessary to say whether going by the version of the prosecution<\/p>\n<p>conscious possession of the alleged stolen articles with the revision<\/p>\n<p>petitioner has been proved. Though PW1 stated at one stage that it<\/p>\n<p>is difficult for him to identify MO1series, rubber sheets on account of<\/p>\n<p>its oldness, he claimed that his rubber sheets carried the mark &#8216;TB&#8217;<\/p>\n<p>since the same were pressed at the mill belonging to PW7. This is<\/p>\n<p>supported by PWs 2 &amp;4 as well. In fact there is no serious challenge<\/p>\n<p>to the version of PWs 2 &amp; 4 that the rubber sheets had the marking<\/p>\n<p>Crl.R.P. No.684\/2001<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                  -:3:-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>&#8216;TB&#8217;. It is seen from Ext.P1, mahazar prepared by PW3 for seizer of<\/p>\n<p>the articles that there also the existence of &#8216;TB&#8217; mark is mentioned.<\/p>\n<p>The list of properties submitted by the police in the trial court shows<\/p>\n<p>that the rubber sheets carrying &#8216;TB&#8217; mark were produced in the court.<\/p>\n<p>Therefore there is no reason to disbelieve the identification of MO1<\/p>\n<p>series made by PW1.       MO2 series, sacks in which PW1 had kept<\/p>\n<p>arecanuts also had been identified by PW1 regarding which there is<\/p>\n<p>no serious challenge in cross examination.\n<\/p>\n<p>      5. It is submitted by learned counsel that though according to<\/p>\n<p>PW3 he had arrested the revision petitioner and others on 23.04.92,<\/p>\n<p>seized the alleged stolen articles and registered case against them<\/p>\n<p>under Section 4(1) (d) and 102 Cr.P.C as seen from Ext.P2, the FIR<\/p>\n<p>and the case was transferred to Peringom police within whose limits<\/p>\n<p>the incident occurred, the transfer FIR reached the Peringom Police<\/p>\n<p>Station only on 02.06.92 as seen from Ext.P4 and the testimony of<\/p>\n<p>PW5. Learned counsel doubted where exactly the transfer FIR was<\/p>\n<p>from 23.04.92 till 02.06.92?\n<\/p>\n<p>      6. But it is not shown that on 23.04.92 itself, the FIR had been<\/p>\n<p>transferred to Peringom Police Station. The delay in sending the FIR<\/p>\n<p>Crl.R.P. No.684\/2001<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                 -:4:-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>may have been due to administrative delay or such other reason but<\/p>\n<p>PWs 3 or 5 were not questioned with reference to that. So far as the<\/p>\n<p>alleged conscious possession of the stolen articles with the revision<\/p>\n<p>petitioner is concerned, there appears to be confusion. Going by the<\/p>\n<p>evidence of PW3 and Ext.P1, the arecanuts were carried in plastic<\/p>\n<p>sacks. PW3 stated in cross examination that the revision petitioner<\/p>\n<p>and two others were cited near Perumba bus stop at about 8.45 a.m.<\/p>\n<p>and that &#8220;two accused&#8221; were carrying plastic sacks while one sack<\/p>\n<p>was kept nearby on the floor. PW3 was not able to say which of the<\/p>\n<p>accused were carrying the sacks. It is not clear from the version of<\/p>\n<p>PW3 or Ext.P1 whether the revision petitioner was one among the<\/p>\n<p>two accused who were carrying the plastic sacks. If the revision<\/p>\n<p>petitioner was not carrying any of the plastic sack, he cannot be said<\/p>\n<p>to have been in conscious possession of the stolen articles kept in<\/p>\n<p>the sacks carried by the other accused unless common intention is<\/p>\n<p>otherwise proved. Assuming that the revision petitioner was standing<\/p>\n<p>nearby the sack containing the stolen article and kept on the floor,<\/p>\n<p>that by itself cannot amount to conscious possession of the said<\/p>\n<p>stolen article with him since concededly the place of arrest and<\/p>\n<p>Crl.R.P. No.684\/2001<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                 -:5:-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>seizure is a bus stop where revision petitioner could be present for<\/p>\n<p>other reasons as well.      Therefore, I am inclined to accept the<\/p>\n<p>contention that conscious possession of the stolen articles with the<\/p>\n<p>revision petitioner has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. If<\/p>\n<p>that be so, conviction and sentence on him cannot be sustained.<\/p>\n<p>      The revision petition therefore succeeds.     Conviction and<\/p>\n<p>sentence of the revision petitioner are set aside and he is acquitted<\/p>\n<p>of the charge against him. Bail bond is cancelled.<\/p>\n<p>                                      THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE<br \/>\nttb<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Kerala High Court Ashraf vs State on 17 September, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 684 of 2001() 1. ASHRAF &#8230; Petitioner Vs 1. STATE,SHO PERINGOME,HIGH COURT,EKM. &#8230; Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.V.RAJAGOPAL For Respondent : No Appearance The Hon&#8217;ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH Dated :17\/09\/2008 O R D E R THOMAS [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-98269","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Ashraf vs State on 17 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/ashraf-vs-state-on-17-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ashraf vs State on 17 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashraf-vs-state-on-17-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-09-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-04T17:52:33+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=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashraf-vs-state-on-17-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashraf-vs-state-on-17-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ashraf vs State on 17 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-04T17:52:33+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashraf-vs-state-on-17-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":912,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashraf-vs-state-on-17-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashraf-vs-state-on-17-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashraf-vs-state-on-17-september-2008\",\"name\":\"Ashraf vs State on 17 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-04T17:52:33+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashraf-vs-state-on-17-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashraf-vs-state-on-17-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashraf-vs-state-on-17-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ashraf vs State on 17 September, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Ashraf vs State on 17 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/ashraf-vs-state-on-17-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ashraf vs State on 17 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashraf-vs-state-on-17-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-04T17:52:33+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":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashraf-vs-state-on-17-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashraf-vs-state-on-17-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ashraf vs State on 17 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-04T17:52:33+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashraf-vs-state-on-17-september-2008"},"wordCount":912,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashraf-vs-state-on-17-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashraf-vs-state-on-17-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashraf-vs-state-on-17-september-2008","name":"Ashraf vs State on 17 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-04T17:52:33+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashraf-vs-state-on-17-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashraf-vs-state-on-17-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashraf-vs-state-on-17-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ashraf vs State on 17 September, 2008"}]},{"@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\/98269","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=98269"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/98269\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=98269"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=98269"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=98269"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}