{"id":215886,"date":"2019-06-19T09:30:41","date_gmt":"2019-06-19T04:00:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=215886"},"modified":"2019-06-26T18:28:41","modified_gmt":"2019-06-26T12:58:41","slug":"gau-hc-mere-fixing-of-matter-for-judgment-on-a-subsequent-date-by-itself-cannot-be-construed-as-termination-of-trial-petition-challenging-summoning-of-witness-dismissed","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/06\/19\/gau-hc-mere-fixing-of-matter-for-judgment-on-a-subsequent-date-by-itself-cannot-be-construed-as-termination-of-trial-petition-challenging-summoning-of-witness-dismissed\/","title":{"rendered":"Gau HC | Mere fixing of matter for judgment on a subsequent date by itself cannot be construed as termination of trial; petition challenging summoning of witness dismissed"},"content":{"rendered":"

Gauhati High Court:\u00a0<\/strong>Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, J. dismissed a petition against the order of the trial court whereby it had summoned the Controller of Examination of the Board of Secondary Education, Assam to produce relevant documents in order to prove the age of the prosecutrix.<\/p>\n

The petitioner was facing trial under Sections 366, 342 and 34 IPC along with Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. As per the petitioner, the arguments had concluded and the matter was fixed for judgment on 26-04-2019. However, submitted the petitioner, that as he had taken a substantive stand that the prosecutrix was not below the age of 18 years on the date of occurrence. The Aditional Sessions Judge decided to fill up the lacuna in the prosecution case by suo moto issuing an order, whereby summons was issued to the Controller of Examination as mentioned above.<\/p>\n

The petitioner was represented by H. Goswami, Advocate, contended that under Section 311 CrPC, the trial court can summon a material witness or examine any person only at the stage of enquiry or trial or in any other proceeding under the Code and not after termination\/conclusion of the trial. The petitioner also relied upon Section 353 which inter alia provides that the judgment in every trial in any criminal court of original jurisdiction shall be pronounced in the open court presiding officer immediately after termination of the trial or at some subsequent time of which notice shall be given to the parties. It was contended that as per the provisions of Section 353 which provides for judgment\u00a0after the termination of a trial, any order passed in a trial reserving a matter for judgment, would itself\u00a0be an indication that the trial of the matter had already concluded. Accordingly, the very order posting the matter for judgment on 26-04-2019 was itself a conclusive indication that the stage of termination of the trial already had been arrived.<\/p>\n

Rejecting such contentions, the High Court observed:\u00a0“Section 353 nowhere provides that once a proceeding is fixed for judgment that by itself is an indication that it is the termination of the trial. All that it provides is that the Judgment shall be pronounced by the presiding officer after the termination of the trial. Therefore, only a pronouncement of the judgment itself can be understood to be a situation where there is a termination of the trial and merely because the matter stood fixed for a judgment to be delivered on a subsequent date by itself cannot be construed to be a termination of the trial.<\/strong><\/p>\n

It was noted that Section 311 clearly provides that any Court may at any stage of the enquiry trial or other proceedings under the Code; summon a person as a witness, or examine the person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined, if his evidence appears to the Court to be essential to the just decision of the case. Resultantly, finding no infirmity in the impugned order, the Court dismissed the petition.[Deepjyoti Kalita v. State of Assam, 2019 SCC OnLine Gau 2631<\/b><\/a>, decided on 04-06-2019]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Gauhati High Court:\u00a0Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, J. dismissed a petition against the order of the trial court whereby it had summoned the <\/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":[36133,12981,36134,36135,30942,36136],"class_list":["post-215886","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-fixing-matter","tag-judgment","tag-order-of-date","tag-proceeding","tag-section-311-crpc","tag-termination-conclusion-of-trial"],"yoast_head":"\nGau HC | Mere fixing of matter for judgment on a subsequent date by itself cannot be construed as termination of trial; petition challenging summoning of witness dismissed | 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\/06\/19\/gau-hc-mere-fixing-of-matter-for-judgment-on-a-subsequent-date-by-itself-cannot-be-construed-as-termination-of-trial-petition-challenging-summoning-of-witness-dismissed\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gau HC | Mere fixing of matter for judgment on a subsequent date by itself cannot be construed as termination of trial; petition challenging summoning of witness dismissed\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Gauhati High Court:\u00a0Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, J. dismissed a petition against the order of the trial court whereby it had summoned the\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/06\/19\/gau-hc-mere-fixing-of-matter-for-judgment-on-a-subsequent-date-by-itself-cannot-be-construed-as-termination-of-trial-petition-challenging-summoning-of-witness-dismissed\/\" \/>\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=\"2019-06-19T04:00:41+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-06-26T12:58:41+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/05\/Gauhati-HC.jpeg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\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=\"3 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\/06\/19\/gau-hc-mere-fixing-of-matter-for-judgment-on-a-subsequent-date-by-itself-cannot-be-construed-as-termination-of-trial-petition-challenging-summoning-of-witness-dismissed\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/06\/19\/gau-hc-mere-fixing-of-matter-for-judgment-on-a-subsequent-date-by-itself-cannot-be-construed-as-termination-of-trial-petition-challenging-summoning-of-witness-dismissed\/\",\"name\":\"Gau HC | Mere fixing of matter for judgment on a subsequent date by itself cannot be construed as termination of trial; petition challenging summoning of witness dismissed | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2019-06-19T04:00:41+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-06-26T12:58:41+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/06\/19\/gau-hc-mere-fixing-of-matter-for-judgment-on-a-subsequent-date-by-itself-cannot-be-construed-as-termination-of-trial-petition-challenging-summoning-of-witness-dismissed\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/06\/19\/gau-hc-mere-fixing-of-matter-for-judgment-on-a-subsequent-date-by-itself-cannot-be-construed-as-termination-of-trial-petition-challenging-summoning-of-witness-dismissed\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/06\/19\/gau-hc-mere-fixing-of-matter-for-judgment-on-a-subsequent-date-by-itself-cannot-be-construed-as-termination-of-trial-petition-challenging-summoning-of-witness-dismissed\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gau HC | Mere fixing of matter for judgment on a subsequent date by itself cannot be construed as termination of trial; petition challenging summoning of witness dismissed\"}]},{\"@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":"Gau HC | Mere fixing of matter for judgment on a subsequent date by itself cannot be construed as termination of trial; petition challenging summoning of witness dismissed | 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\/06\/19\/gau-hc-mere-fixing-of-matter-for-judgment-on-a-subsequent-date-by-itself-cannot-be-construed-as-termination-of-trial-petition-challenging-summoning-of-witness-dismissed\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gau HC | Mere fixing of matter for judgment on a subsequent date by itself cannot be construed as termination of trial; petition challenging summoning of witness dismissed","og_description":"Gauhati High Court:\u00a0Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, J. dismissed a petition against the order of the trial court whereby it had summoned the","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/06\/19\/gau-hc-mere-fixing-of-matter-for-judgment-on-a-subsequent-date-by-itself-cannot-be-construed-as-termination-of-trial-petition-challenging-summoning-of-witness-dismissed\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2019-06-19T04:00:41+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-06-26T12:58:41+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/05\/Gauhati-HC.jpeg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Bhumika Indulia","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Bhumika Indulia","Est. reading time":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/06\/19\/gau-hc-mere-fixing-of-matter-for-judgment-on-a-subsequent-date-by-itself-cannot-be-construed-as-termination-of-trial-petition-challenging-summoning-of-witness-dismissed\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/06\/19\/gau-hc-mere-fixing-of-matter-for-judgment-on-a-subsequent-date-by-itself-cannot-be-construed-as-termination-of-trial-petition-challenging-summoning-of-witness-dismissed\/","name":"Gau HC | Mere fixing of matter for judgment on a subsequent date by itself cannot be construed as termination of trial; petition challenging summoning of witness dismissed | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2019-06-19T04:00:41+00:00","dateModified":"2019-06-26T12:58:41+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/06\/19\/gau-hc-mere-fixing-of-matter-for-judgment-on-a-subsequent-date-by-itself-cannot-be-construed-as-termination-of-trial-petition-challenging-summoning-of-witness-dismissed\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/06\/19\/gau-hc-mere-fixing-of-matter-for-judgment-on-a-subsequent-date-by-itself-cannot-be-construed-as-termination-of-trial-petition-challenging-summoning-of-witness-dismissed\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/06\/19\/gau-hc-mere-fixing-of-matter-for-judgment-on-a-subsequent-date-by-itself-cannot-be-construed-as-termination-of-trial-petition-challenging-summoning-of-witness-dismissed\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gau HC | Mere fixing of matter for judgment on a subsequent date by itself cannot be construed as termination of trial; petition challenging summoning of witness dismissed"}]},{"@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":293038,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/25\/simultaneous-action-will-not-apply-in-departmental-and-criminal-proceedings-covered-by-bipartite-settlement-allahabad-hc-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":215886,"position":0},"title":"General principle of simultaneous action will not apply in departmental and criminal proceedings covered by Bipartite Settlement: Allahabad High Court","author":"Apoorva","date":"May 25, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Allahabad High Court said that the Tribunal has not considered the effect of acquittal of the petitioner from the identical criminal charges. The judgment is completely silent about the same. This is an apparent perversity on the part of the Tribunal.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"allahabad high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/allahabad-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/allahabad-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/allahabad-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/allahabad-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":282208,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/01\/23\/court-fee-cannot-be-refunded-after-the-suit-is-decided-on-merits\/","url_meta":{"origin":215886,"position":1},"title":"Kerala High Court | Court fee cannot be refunded after the suit decided on merits","author":"Editor","date":"January 23, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Kerala High Court observed that when the suit is dismissed on finding that it is barred by law, the court fees cannot be refunded.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Kerala High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/MicrosoftTeams-image-310.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":250071,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/06\/21\/alteration-of-charges\/","url_meta":{"origin":215886,"position":2},"title":"HP HC | Can an application for addition\/ alteration of charges be made by State at the stage when the matter is fixed for arguments? Court explains","author":"Editor","date":"June 21, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Himachal Pradesh High Court: Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J., dismissed the petition being devoid of merits. The facts of the case are such that the accused persons had connived with each other to hatch a conspiracy and misappropriated public funds. The State moved an application for addition of charge under Section\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":210862,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/02\/25\/del-hc-wife-granted-opportunity-to-prove-additional-documents-not-available-during-trial-for-maintenance-under-s-125-crpc\/","url_meta":{"origin":215886,"position":3},"title":"Del HC | Wife granted opportunity to prove additional documents not available during trial for maintenance under S. 125 CrPC","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"February 25, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court:\u00a0Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. disposed of a petition filed in a matrimonial dispute by allowing the petitioner (wife) to prove additional documents in the matter of an application seeking maintenance from the respondent (husband) under Section 125 CrPC. Earlier, the trial court had dismissed the wife's application on the\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":218167,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/08\/17\/del-hc-discrepancy-of-not-filing-leave-to-defend-under-or-37-r-35-in-response-to-summary-suit-could-be-ignored-in-interest-of-justice\/","url_meta":{"origin":215886,"position":4},"title":"Del HC | Discrepancy of not filing “leave to defend” under Or. 37 R. 3(5) in response to summary suit could be ignored in interest of justice","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"August 17, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High court:\u00a0Vibhu Bhkaru, J. dismissed a revision petition filed under Section 115 CPC impugning an order passed by the Additional District Judge in the subject summary suit whereby the respondents were granted unconditional Leave to Defend. The respondents had defaulted in repaying the loan extended to them by the\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":227257,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/03\/19\/del-hc-nirbhaya-case-convicts-plea-dismissed-for-being-frivolous-no-fraud-played-upon-the-court-fair-and-proper-trial-conducted\/","url_meta":{"origin":215886,"position":5},"title":"Del HC | Nirbhaya Case convict\u2019s plea dismissed for being frivolous; \u201cNo fraud played upon the Court: Fair and Proper trial conducted","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"March 19, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court: Brijesh Sethi, J., dismissed the present petition filed by Mukesh one of the convicts in the Nirbhaya Case. Counsel for the petitioner had submitted that death warrant had been issued against the petitioner as well as other convicts and the execution of sentence has been fixed for\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\/215886","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=215886"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/215886\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=215886"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=215886"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=215886"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}