{"id":214535,"date":"2019-05-10T11:39:29","date_gmt":"2019-05-10T06:09:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=214535"},"modified":"2019-05-17T12:13:02","modified_gmt":"2019-05-17T06:43:02","slug":"del-hc-no-prior-permission-required-to-be-taken-by-party-seeking-to-lead-secondary-evidence-law-on-s-65-of-evidence-act-explained","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/10\/del-hc-no-prior-permission-required-to-be-taken-by-party-seeking-to-lead-secondary-evidence-law-on-s-65-of-evidence-act-explained\/","title":{"rendered":"Del HC | No prior permission required to be taken by party seeking to lead secondary evidence; law on S. 65 of Evidence Act explained"},"content":{"rendered":"

Delhi High Court:\u00a0<\/strong>Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. while holding that no prejudice was caused to the petitioner, dismissed his petition filed against the order of the trial court whereby it had allowed an application filed by the Narcotic Control Bureau under Section 65 of the Evidence Act, 1872.<\/p>\n

Subject application was filed by the Bureau contending that some relevant files, required for the purposes of prosecution, were misplaced and therefore permission was sought to lead secondary evidence. The application was allowed by the trial court. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present criminal revision petition.<\/p>\n

In the High Court’s opinion:\u00a0“…. no application is required to be filed by a party seeking permission under Section 65 Indian Evidence Act to lead secondary evidence.”\u00a0<\/strong>It was held:\u00a0“merely because an application under Section 65, Indian Evidence Act was filed and allowed, would not ipso facto make secondary evidence admissible, which is otherwise inadmissible.”\u00a0<\/strong>The law on the subject was explained by the Court thus:<\/p>\n

“<\/strong>Section 61 of the Indian Evidence Act lays down that contents of a document may be proved by primary or secondary evidence. Section 63 defines Secondary Evidence. Section 64 provides that documents must be proved by primary evidence, except in cases thereafter mentioned i.e. in Section 65, Section 65 A and Section 65 B.<\/p>\n

Section 65, Indian Evidence Act, permits secondary evidence to be led in the contingencies mentioned therein. Section 65 does not contemplate the filing of any application or seeking prior permission of the court for leading secondary evidence.<\/strong><\/p>\n

A party producing secondary evidence before a court has to satisfy the conditions mentioned in Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act and only when the conditions of Section 65, Indian Evidence Act are satisfied, secondary evidence would be admissible.<\/p>\n

While adducing secondary evidence, a party shall have to lead evidence firstly to show the existence of the contingency or situation stipulated in Sections 65 and 65B, as the case may be and Secondly lead evidence in proof of the said document.<\/p>\n

Only after the evidence is led before the court, would the court be in a position to form an opinion as to whether circumstances\/situation, as stipulated under Section 65 Indian Evidence Act, making secondary evidence admissible, exist or not.”<\/p>\n

In such view of the matter, it was found that the impugned order neither favoured the Bureau nor prejudiced the petitioner. Therefore the petition was dismissed. However, it was clarified that the Bureau would have to lead evidence to show the requirements of Section 65 were satisfied prior to the secondary evidence being admissible. [Satyam Kumar Sah v. Narcotic Control Bureau, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8409<\/b><\/a>, decided on 06-05-2019]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Delhi High Court:\u00a0Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. while holding that no prejudice was caused to the petitioner, dismissed his petition filed against the order <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8808,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[35324,35325,3120,35323],"class_list":["post-214535","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-narcotic-control-bureau","tag-order-of-trial-court","tag-secondary_evidence","tag-section-65-evidence-act"],"yoast_head":"\nDel HC | No prior permission required to be taken by party seeking to lead secondary evidence; law on S. 65 of Evidence Act explained | SCC Times<\/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.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/10\/del-hc-no-prior-permission-required-to-be-taken-by-party-seeking-to-lead-secondary-evidence-law-on-s-65-of-evidence-act-explained\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Del HC | No prior permission required to be taken by party seeking to lead secondary evidence; law on S. 65 of Evidence Act explained\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Delhi High Court:\u00a0Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. while holding that no prejudice was caused to the petitioner, dismissed his petition filed against the order\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/10\/del-hc-no-prior-permission-required-to-be-taken-by-party-seeking-to-lead-secondary-evidence-law-on-s-65-of-evidence-act-explained\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2019-05-10T06:09:29+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-05-17T06:43:02+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Delhi-HC.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1329\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"888\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"2 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/10\/del-hc-no-prior-permission-required-to-be-taken-by-party-seeking-to-lead-secondary-evidence-law-on-s-65-of-evidence-act-explained\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/10\/del-hc-no-prior-permission-required-to-be-taken-by-party-seeking-to-lead-secondary-evidence-law-on-s-65-of-evidence-act-explained\/\",\"name\":\"Del HC | No prior permission required to be taken by party seeking to lead secondary evidence; law on S. 65 of Evidence Act explained | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2019-05-10T06:09:29+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-05-17T06:43:02+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/10\/del-hc-no-prior-permission-required-to-be-taken-by-party-seeking-to-lead-secondary-evidence-law-on-s-65-of-evidence-act-explained\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/10\/del-hc-no-prior-permission-required-to-be-taken-by-party-seeking-to-lead-secondary-evidence-law-on-s-65-of-evidence-act-explained\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/10\/del-hc-no-prior-permission-required-to-be-taken-by-party-seeking-to-lead-secondary-evidence-law-on-s-65-of-evidence-act-explained\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Del HC | No prior permission required to be taken by party seeking to lead secondary evidence; law on S. 65 of Evidence Act explained\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\",\"name\":\"Bhumika Indulia\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"caption\":\"Bhumika Indulia\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Del HC | No prior permission required to be taken by party seeking to lead secondary evidence; law on S. 65 of Evidence Act explained | SCC Times","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.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/10\/del-hc-no-prior-permission-required-to-be-taken-by-party-seeking-to-lead-secondary-evidence-law-on-s-65-of-evidence-act-explained\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Del HC | No prior permission required to be taken by party seeking to lead secondary evidence; law on S. 65 of Evidence Act explained","og_description":"Delhi High Court:\u00a0Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. while holding that no prejudice was caused to the petitioner, dismissed his petition filed against the order","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/10\/del-hc-no-prior-permission-required-to-be-taken-by-party-seeking-to-lead-secondary-evidence-law-on-s-65-of-evidence-act-explained\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2019-05-10T06:09:29+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-05-17T06:43:02+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1329,"height":888,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Delhi-HC.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Bhumika Indulia","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Bhumika Indulia","Est. reading time":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/10\/del-hc-no-prior-permission-required-to-be-taken-by-party-seeking-to-lead-secondary-evidence-law-on-s-65-of-evidence-act-explained\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/10\/del-hc-no-prior-permission-required-to-be-taken-by-party-seeking-to-lead-secondary-evidence-law-on-s-65-of-evidence-act-explained\/","name":"Del HC | No prior permission required to be taken by party seeking to lead secondary evidence; law on S. 65 of Evidence Act explained | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2019-05-10T06:09:29+00:00","dateModified":"2019-05-17T06:43:02+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/10\/del-hc-no-prior-permission-required-to-be-taken-by-party-seeking-to-lead-secondary-evidence-law-on-s-65-of-evidence-act-explained\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/10\/del-hc-no-prior-permission-required-to-be-taken-by-party-seeking-to-lead-secondary-evidence-law-on-s-65-of-evidence-act-explained\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/10\/del-hc-no-prior-permission-required-to-be-taken-by-party-seeking-to-lead-secondary-evidence-law-on-s-65-of-evidence-act-explained\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Del HC | No prior permission required to be taken by party seeking to lead secondary evidence; law on S. 65 of Evidence Act explained"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a","name":"Bhumika Indulia","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","caption":"Bhumika Indulia"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":361734,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/26\/madras-hc-xerox-copy-of-lost-cheque-admissible-under-s-65-evidence-act\/","url_meta":{"origin":214535,"position":0},"title":"Xerox copy of lost cheque admissible as secondary evidence under S. 65 Evidence Act if original was verified: Madras High Court","author":"Editor","date":"September 26, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cIf the original document is lost or destroyed, detained by the opponent, or third person, who does not produce it before the Court or physically irrecoverable, the secondary evidence is admissible\u201d.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Xerox copy of lost cheque admissible as secondary evidence","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/Xerox-copy-of-lost-cheque-admissible-as-secondary-evidence.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/Xerox-copy-of-lost-cheque-admissible-as-secondary-evidence.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/Xerox-copy-of-lost-cheque-admissible-as-secondary-evidence.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/Xerox-copy-of-lost-cheque-admissible-as-secondary-evidence.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":182184,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/01\/18\/mere-permission-produce-documents-secondary-evidence-not-amount-admittance-evidence-court\/","url_meta":{"origin":214535,"position":1},"title":"Mere permission to produce documents as secondary evidence does not amount to admittance of evidence by the court","author":"Saba","date":"January 18, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Bombay High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Shalini Phansalkar Joshi, J. heard a petition challenging the order of the trial court that had allowed admission of letters by the respondent as secondary evidence. The petitioner contended that there was nothing on record to show that those letters had\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":245350,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/11\/review\/","url_meta":{"origin":214535,"position":2},"title":"CBI | Adjudication on \u2018changed circumstances\u2019 not conducive to be treated as \u2018review\u2019 | Grants permission to lead secondary evidence","author":"Editor","date":"March 11, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Special Court, CBI, Ghaziabad- The Court of Shivank Singh, Special Judicial Magistrate (CBI), allowed the application where permission to lead secondary evidence was sought for. In the present matter, the charge sheet along with certain photocopies (made from the original) were lost from the CBI office, with an enquiry pending\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/10\/CBI.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/10\/CBI.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/10\/CBI.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/10\/CBI.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/10\/CBI.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":200635,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/26\/trial-court-empowered-to-summon-material-prosecution-witness-even-at-stage-of-defence-evidence-order-passed-under-section-311-crpc-upheld\/","url_meta":{"origin":214535,"position":3},"title":"Trial Court empowered to summon material prosecution witness even at stage of defence evidence; order passed under Section 311 CrPC upheld","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"August 26, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Punjab and Haryana High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Surinder Gupta, J. dismissed an appeal filed against order of the trial court whereby the application filed by the prosecution under Section 311 CrPC was allowed. The petitioner was facing the trial under Section 18 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":218135,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/08\/16\/mp-hc-non-filing-of-certificate-under-s-65-b-of-evidence-act-on-an-earlier-occasion-can-be-excused-if-it-is-filed-at-a-later-stage-during-trial\/","url_meta":{"origin":214535,"position":4},"title":"MP HC | Non-filing of certificate under S. 65-B of Evidence Act on an earlier occasion can be excused if it is filed at a later stage during trial","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"August 16, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Madhya Pradesh High Court: Rajeev Kumar Dubey, J., upheld the decision of the Trial Court and rejected a petition filed under Section 482 of CrPC. A petition was filed for quashing the order passed by First Additional Session Judge to the Court of Additional Judge, whereby the trial Court allowed\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":264923,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/04\/02\/voice-samples\/","url_meta":{"origin":214535,"position":5},"title":"P&H HC | S. 65-B (4) of the Evidence Act does not mention the stage of furnishing the certificate for admissibility; Court directs to give voice sample","author":"Editor","date":"April 2, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Punjab and Haryana High Court: Avneesh Jhingan, J., entertained a petition under Section 482 CrPC where the petitioner was aggrieved by the directions of the Chief Judicial Magistrate for giving voice samples. The complainant was running a chemist shop, due to an unauthorized alteration in the shop; it was sealed\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/214535","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8808"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=214535"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/214535\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=214535"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=214535"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=214535"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}