{"id":166658,"date":"2010-11-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/popatlal-vs-the-present-appeal-on-25-november-2010"},"modified":"2017-08-20T15:50:24","modified_gmt":"2017-08-20T10:20:24","slug":"popatlal-vs-the-present-appeal-on-25-november-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/popatlal-vs-the-present-appeal-on-25-november-2010","title":{"rendered":"Popatlal vs The Present Appeal on 25 November, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Popatlal vs The Present Appeal on 25 November, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Z.K.Saiyed,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCR.A\/95\/2010\t 7\/ 8\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nCRIMINAL\nAPPEAL No. 95 of 2010\n \n\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nPOPATLAL\nHARJIVANDAS PATEL PROPRIETOR-SEJAL CONSULTANCIES - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT &amp; 1 - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nSK PATEL for\nAppellant(s) : 1, \nMR HL JANI ld. APP for Opponent(s) : 1, \nMR\nGIRISH K PATEL for Opponent(s) :\n2, \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 23\/02\/2010 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p>1.0<br \/>\nThe present appeal, under section 378 of the Code of Criminal<br \/>\nProcedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order of<br \/>\nacquittal dated 19.7.2009 passed by the learned Metropolitan<br \/>\nMagistrate, Court no. 19, Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No. 1599\/2000,<br \/>\nwhereby the accused has been acquitted of the charges under sec. 138<br \/>\nof Negotiable Instruments Act,  leveled against him.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.0<br \/>\nThe brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>2.1<br \/>\nIt is the case of the prosecution that the appellant was doing the<br \/>\nbusiness of shares and stocks in the name and style of Sejal<br \/>\nConsultancies Service and the respondent no. 2 was also dealing with<br \/>\nthe appellant to purchase and sell of shares and stocks. The<br \/>\nrespondent no. 2 has dealt with the present appellant for about three<br \/>\nyears and after three years the total outstanding of the respondent<br \/>\nno. 2 to the appellant was Rs.1,69,032\/- and, therefore, to discharge<br \/>\nhis liability, the respondent no. 2 gave three cheques to the<br \/>\nappellant. The appellant deposited the said cheques in the bank which<br \/>\nwere returned back on 7.8.2000 with an endorsement of  Funds<br \/>\ninsufficient .  Therefore, the appellant has given notice under<br \/>\nsec. 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act to the respondent by regd. AD<br \/>\nand also UPC, which was received by the respondent and has vaguely<br \/>\nreplied.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.2<br \/>\nTherefore, a complaint with respect to the aforesaid offence was<br \/>\nfiled against the respondent with the  before the court of learned<br \/>\nMetropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad,  which was numbered as Criminal<br \/>\nCase No.  1599\/2000. The trial was initiated against the respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.3<br \/>\nTo prove the case against the present accused, the prosecution has<br \/>\nexamined witnesses and also produced documentary evidence.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.4<br \/>\nAt the end of trial, after recording the statement of the accused<br \/>\nunder section 313 of Cr.P.C., and hearing arguments on behalf of<br \/>\nprosecution and the defence, the learned trial Judge acquitted the<br \/>\nrespondent of all the charges leveled against him by judgment and<br \/>\norder dated 19.7.2007.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.5<br \/>\nBeing aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and<br \/>\norder passed by the trial Court the appellant   ori. Complainant<br \/>\nhas preferred the present appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.0<br \/>\nIt was contended by learned Advocate Mr SK Patel  for the appellant<br \/>\nthat the judgment and order of the trial Court is against the<br \/>\nprovisions of law; the trial Court has not properly considered the<br \/>\nevidence led by the prosecution and looking to the provisions of law<br \/>\nitself it is established that the prosecution has proved the whole<br \/>\ningredients of the evidence against the present respondent. Learned<br \/>\nAdvocate has also taken this court through the oral as well as the<br \/>\nentire documentary evidence. Learned advocate Mr SK Patel for the<br \/>\nappellant has also submitted that the appellant has produced the<br \/>\nzerox copy of the books of account which was not properly exhibited<br \/>\nand considered by the trial Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.0<br \/>\nAt the outset it is required to be noted that the principles which<br \/>\nwould govern and regulate the hearing of appeal by this Court against<br \/>\nan order of acquittal passed by the trial Court have been very<br \/>\nsuccinctly explained by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions. In<br \/>\nthe case of<br \/>\nM.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani Vs. State of Kerala &amp; Anr, reported in<br \/>\n(2006)6 SCC, 39,<br \/>\nthe Apex Court has narrated about the powers of the High Court in<br \/>\nappeal against the order of acquittal. In para 54 of the decision,<br \/>\nthe Apex Court has observed as under:\n<\/p>\n<p> 54.<br \/>\nIn any event the High Court entertained an appeal treating to be an<br \/>\nappeal against acquittal, it was in fact exercising the revisional<br \/>\njurisdiction. Even while exercising an appellate power against a<br \/>\njudgment of acquittal, the High Court should have borne in mind the<br \/>\nwell-settled principles of law that where two view are possible, the<br \/>\nappellate<br \/>\ncourt should not interfere with the finding of acquittal recorded by<br \/>\nthe court below.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.1<br \/>\nFurther, in the case of Chandrappa<br \/>\nVs. State of Karnataka, reported in (2007)4 SCC 415<br \/>\nthe<br \/>\nApex Court laid down the following principles:\n<\/p>\n<p> 42.<br \/>\nFrom the above decisions, in our considered view, the following<br \/>\ngeneral principles regarding powers of the appellate court while<br \/>\ndealing<br \/>\nwith an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:\n<\/p>\n<p>[1]<br \/>\nAn appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and<br \/>\nreconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.\n<\/p>\n<p>[2]<br \/>\nThe Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction<br \/>\nor condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the<br \/>\nevidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of<br \/>\nfact and of law.\n<\/p>\n<p>[3]<br \/>\nVarious expressions, such as,  substantial and compelling reasons ,<br \/>\n good and sufficient grounds ,  very strong circumstances ,<br \/>\n distorted conclusions ,  glaring mistakes , etc. are not<br \/>\nintended to curtain extensive powers of an appellate court in an<br \/>\nappeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature<br \/>\nof  flourishes of language  to emphasis the reluctance of an<br \/>\nappellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power<br \/>\nof the court to review the evidence and to come to its own<br \/>\nconclusion.\n<\/p>\n<p>[4]<br \/>\nAn appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of<br \/>\nacquittal there is double presumption in favour of the accused.<br \/>\nFirstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the<br \/>\nfundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person<br \/>\nshall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a<br \/>\ncompetent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his<br \/>\nacquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced,<br \/>\nreaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.\n<\/p>\n<p>[5]<br \/>\nIf two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the<br \/>\nevidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the<br \/>\nfinding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.2<br \/>\nThus, it is a settled principle that while exercising appellate<br \/>\npower, even if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis<br \/>\nof the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the<br \/>\nfinding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.3<br \/>\nEven in a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/585040\/\">State<br \/>\nof Goa V. Sanjay Thakran &amp; Anr. Reported<\/a> in (2007)3 SCC 75,<br \/>\nthe Court has reiterated the powers of the High Court in such cases.<br \/>\nIn para 16 of the said decision the Court has observed as under:\n<\/p>\n<p> 16.<br \/>\nFrom the aforesaid decisions, it is apparent that while exercising<br \/>\nthe powers in appeal against the order of acquittal the Court of<br \/>\nappeal would not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal<br \/>\nunless the approach of the lower Court is vitiated by some manifest<br \/>\nillegality and the conclusion arrived at would not be arrived at by<br \/>\nany reasonable person and, therefore, the decision is to be<br \/>\ncharacterized as perverse. Merely because two views are possible, the<br \/>\nCourt of appeal would not take the view which would upset the<br \/>\njudgment delivered by the Court below. However, the appellate court<br \/>\nhas a power to review the evidence if it is of the view that the<br \/>\nconclusion arrived at by the Court below is perverse and the Court<br \/>\nhas committed a manifest error of law and ignored the material<br \/>\nevidence on record. A duty is cast upon the appellate court, in such<br \/>\ncircumstances, to re-appreciate the evidence to arrive to a just<br \/>\ndecision on the basis of material placed on record to find out<br \/>\nwhether any of the accused is connected with the commission of the<br \/>\ncrime he is charged with.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.4<br \/>\nSimilar principle has been laid down by the Apex Court in the cases<br \/>\nof State<br \/>\nof<br \/>\nUttar Pradesh Vs. Ram Veer Singh &amp; Ors, reported in 2007 AIR SCW<br \/>\n5553 and<br \/>\nin Girja<br \/>\nPrasad (Dead) by LRs Vs. state of MP, reported in 2007 AIR SCW 5589.<br \/>\nThus, the powers which this Court may exercise against an order of<br \/>\nacquittal are well settled.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.5<br \/>\nIt is also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeal, the<br \/>\nappellate court is not<br \/>\nrequired to re-write the judgment or to give fresh reasonings, when<br \/>\nthe reasons assigned by the Court below are found to be just and<br \/>\nproper. Such principle<br \/>\nis laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State<br \/>\nof Karnataka Vs. Hemareddy, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1417,<br \/>\nwherein,<br \/>\nit is held as under:\n<\/p>\n<p> &amp;<br \/>\nThis court<br \/>\nhas observed in Girija<br \/>\nNandini Devi V. Bigendra Nandini Chaudhary (1967)1 SCR 93: (AIR 1967<br \/>\nSC 1124) that<br \/>\nit is not the duty of the appellate court when it agrees with the<br \/>\nview of the trial court on the evidence to repeat the narration of<br \/>\nthe evidence or to reiterate the reasons given by the trial court<br \/>\nexpression of general agreement with the reasons given by the Court<br \/>\nthe decision of which is under appeal, will ordinarily suffice.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.6<br \/>\nThus, in case the appellate court agrees with the reasons and the<br \/>\nopinion given by the lower court, then the discussion of evidence is<br \/>\nnot necessary.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.0<br \/>\nI have gone through the judgment and order passed by the trial court.<br \/>\nI have also perused the oral as well as documentary evidence led by<br \/>\nthe trial court and also considered the submissions made by learned<br \/>\nAPP for the appellant-State. The trial court while considering the<br \/>\noral as well as documentary evidence has clearly observed that the<br \/>\nappellant has produced the zerox copy of the books of account later<br \/>\non, which has no importance as per the provisions of  law. No doubt,<br \/>\nzerox copy can be prepared from the original  but sec. 63 of the<br \/>\nEvidence Act is required to be followed which is not followed by the<br \/>\ncomplainant. Not only that, the complainant has not produced the<br \/>\nreply of the notice given by the respondent-accused along with the<br \/>\ndocumentary list, whereby, the respondent-accused has asked the<br \/>\ncomplainant to send him the books of account which was not sent by<br \/>\nthe complainant to the respondent-accused, and, therefore, the<br \/>\nappellant-complainant has failed to prove his legal debt and  dues.<br \/>\nThe prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the<br \/>\naccused beyond any reasonable doubt.  Even in the present appeal,<br \/>\nnothing is produced or pointed out to rebut the conclusion of the<br \/>\ntrial Court.  Thus, from the evidence itself it is established that<br \/>\nthe prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.0<br \/>\nMr. SK Patel   learned Advocate is not in a position to show any<br \/>\nevidence to take a contrary view of the matter or that the approach<br \/>\nof the trial court is vitiated by some manifest illegality or that<br \/>\nthe decision is perverse or that the trial court has ignored the<br \/>\nmaterial evidence on record.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.0<br \/>\nIn the above view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that<br \/>\nthe trial court was completely justified in acquitting the respondent<br \/>\nof the charges leveled against him.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.0<br \/>\nI find that the findings recorded by the trial court are absolutely<br \/>\njust and proper and in recording the said findings, no illegality or<br \/>\ninfirmity has been committed by it.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.0<br \/>\nI am, therefore, in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate<br \/>\nconclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the court<br \/>\nbelow and hence find no reasons to interfere with the same. Hence the<br \/>\nappeal is hereby dismissed. R &amp; P to be sent back to the trial<br \/>\nCourt, forthwith. Bail bond, if any, stands cancelled.\n<\/p>\n<p>(Z.K.\n<\/p>\n<p>SAIYED, J.)<\/p>\n<p>mandora\/<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Popatlal vs The Present Appeal on 25 November, 2010 Author: Z.K.Saiyed,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.A\/95\/2010 7\/ 8 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 95 of 2010 ========================================================= POPATLAL HARJIVANDAS PATEL PROPRIETOR-SEJAL CONSULTANCIES &#8211; Appellant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT &amp; 1 &#8211; Opponent(s) [&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":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-166658","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Popatlal vs The Present Appeal on 25 November, 2010 - 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\/popatlal-vs-the-present-appeal-on-25-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Popatlal vs The Present Appeal on 25 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/popatlal-vs-the-present-appeal-on-25-november-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-11-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-20T10:20:24+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/popatlal-vs-the-present-appeal-on-25-november-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/popatlal-vs-the-present-appeal-on-25-november-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Popatlal vs The Present Appeal on 25 November, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-20T10:20:24+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/popatlal-vs-the-present-appeal-on-25-november-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1842,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/popatlal-vs-the-present-appeal-on-25-november-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/popatlal-vs-the-present-appeal-on-25-november-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/popatlal-vs-the-present-appeal-on-25-november-2010\",\"name\":\"Popatlal vs The Present Appeal on 25 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-20T10:20:24+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/popatlal-vs-the-present-appeal-on-25-november-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/popatlal-vs-the-present-appeal-on-25-november-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/popatlal-vs-the-present-appeal-on-25-november-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Popatlal vs The Present Appeal on 25 November, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Popatlal vs The Present Appeal on 25 November, 2010 - 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\/popatlal-vs-the-present-appeal-on-25-november-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Popatlal vs The Present Appeal on 25 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/popatlal-vs-the-present-appeal-on-25-november-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-11-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-20T10:20:24+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/popatlal-vs-the-present-appeal-on-25-november-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/popatlal-vs-the-present-appeal-on-25-november-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Popatlal vs The Present Appeal on 25 November, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-20T10:20:24+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/popatlal-vs-the-present-appeal-on-25-november-2010"},"wordCount":1842,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/popatlal-vs-the-present-appeal-on-25-november-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/popatlal-vs-the-present-appeal-on-25-november-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/popatlal-vs-the-present-appeal-on-25-november-2010","name":"Popatlal vs The Present Appeal on 25 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-20T10:20:24+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/popatlal-vs-the-present-appeal-on-25-november-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/popatlal-vs-the-present-appeal-on-25-november-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/popatlal-vs-the-present-appeal-on-25-november-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Popatlal vs The Present Appeal on 25 November, 2010"}]},{"@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\/166658","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=166658"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/166658\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=166658"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=166658"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=166658"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}