{"id":181316,"date":"2008-09-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unknown-vs-appearance-on-2-september-2008"},"modified":"2017-07-15T12:17:18","modified_gmt":"2017-07-15T06:47:18","slug":"unknown-vs-appearance-on-2-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unknown-vs-appearance-on-2-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"Unknown vs ======================================Appearance on 2 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Unknown vs ======================================Appearance on 2 September, 2008<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Bhagwati Prasad,&amp;Nbsp;Honourable S.R.Brahmbhatt,&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\/856\/1998\t 6\/ 6\tJUDGMENT \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. 856 of 1998\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD  \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT\n \n \n======================================\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo\n\t\t\tbe referred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n======================================\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT \n\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nGUNVANTLAL\nJAWAHARLAL BHAIYA &amp; ANOTHER\n \n\n======================================Appearance\n: \nMr Maulik Nanavati, Additional\nPublic Prosecutor for the State \nMR BHAVIN S RAIYANI for the\nrespondents \n======================================\n \n\t  \n\t \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 BHAGWATI PRASAD\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 02\/09\/2008 \n\n \n\n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p>(Per<br \/>\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD)<\/p>\n<p>\tThe<br \/>\npresent appeal calls in question the correctness of judgment and<br \/>\norder dated 30.06.1998 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,<br \/>\nVadodara in N.D.P.S. Case No. 2 of 1998.  By the impugned judgment,<br \/>\nthe Trial Court has acquitted the present respondents ?  original<br \/>\naccused of the offence punishable under Sections 20(b) and 29 of the<br \/>\nNarcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tHeard<br \/>\nMr. Maulik Nanavati, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the<br \/>\nState and Mr. Bhavik Raiyani for the respondents.  We have perused<br \/>\nthe judgment and gone through the record of the case.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tAt<br \/>\nthe trial, the prosecution led evidence that on the basis of secret<br \/>\ninformation received by the police that the respondents were selling<br \/>\nganja at their house, a raid was carried out and on search of the<br \/>\nhouse of respondents 5 packets of ganja, each weighing 150 grams,<br \/>\nwere recovered.  Except the police officials forming part of the<br \/>\nraid, the other witnesses examined by the prosecution ?  panch<br \/>\nwitness and the witness who weighed the contraband material at the<br \/>\ntime of seizure, did not support the prosecution case.  The other<br \/>\npanch witness was not examined.  The Trial Court, in absence of<br \/>\nindependent corroboration, found it unsafe to rely upon the evidence<br \/>\nof only police officials, and accordingly acquitted the respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tMr.\n<\/p>\n<p>Nanavati, learned Prosecutor for the State, has vehemently submitted<br \/>\nthat the Trial Court was in error in rejecting the evidence of<br \/>\nofficials of raiding party only on the ground that they were police<br \/>\nofficials.  He has submitted that nothing has been brought out by the<br \/>\ndefence in the cross-examination of any of these police witnesses<br \/>\nthat they are not speaking the truth, or that they are interested in<br \/>\nsecuring the conviction of the accused.  He has further submitted<br \/>\nthat when there is nothing on record to shake the credibility of any<br \/>\nthese witnesses, there was no justifiable reason for the Trial Court<br \/>\nnot to believe their evidence about the manner in which the raid was<br \/>\nconducted and muddamal seized from the house of the respondents.  He<br \/>\nhas also submitted that all mandatory provisions of law as regards<br \/>\nprocedure to be following before and during the raid have been<br \/>\nfollowed in the present case.  It is true that no infirmity attaches<br \/>\nto the testimony of police officials, merely because they belong to<br \/>\nthe police force and there is no rule of law or evidence which lays<br \/>\ndown that conviction cannot be recorded on the evidence of the police<br \/>\nofficials, if found reliable, unless corroborated by some independent<br \/>\nevidence.  The rule of prudence, however, requires only a more<br \/>\ncareful scrutiny of their evidence since they can be said to be<br \/>\ninterested in the result of the case projected by them.  Where the<br \/>\nevidence of the police officials, after careful scrutiny, inspires<br \/>\nconfidence and is found to be trustworthy and reliable, it can form<br \/>\nthe basis of conviction and the absence of some independent<br \/>\ncorroboration to their evidence, does not in any way affect the<br \/>\ncreditworthiness of the prosecution case. Merely because the panch<br \/>\nwitnesses and the witness who brought the weights and scale to weigh<br \/>\nthe muddamal did not support the prosecution case and were declared<br \/>\nhostile by itself would not be a sufficient ground for disbelieving<br \/>\nthe police witnesses and discard the prosecution case.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tHowever,<br \/>\nthe appeal must fail for another reason.  We notice from the evidence<br \/>\nof panch witnesses and the police officials that there is discrepancy<br \/>\nas regards the sample of muddamal seized and sent to the laboratory<br \/>\nfor examination.  PSI Jaiminmiya Thakor (PW-3), who was member of the<br \/>\nraiding party, has deposed that 5 packets of ganja were found from<br \/>\nthe house of the respondents.  The contents of all these five packets<br \/>\nwere put in one packet and the same was tied with a thread.<br \/>\nSignatures of panch witnesses and PI Rana were put on the paper slip<br \/>\nand the same was sealed with the packet and taken in custody.  The<br \/>\npanchnama also records that the packet was tied with red thread and a<br \/>\nslip containing signatures of both the panchas and PI Rana was put<br \/>\nwith the packet and thereafter sealed.  PI Rana (PW-5) also states<br \/>\nthat contents of the five packets found from the house of respondents<br \/>\nwere emptied and packed in a white paper on which red thread was<br \/>\ntied, slip having signatures of two panch witnesses was fixed and<br \/>\nthereafter the packet was stamped with the seal of PI Makarpura.  He<br \/>\ndoes not mention about having put his signature on the slip affixed<br \/>\nto the packet.  Interestingly, the Forensic Science Laboratory Report<br \/>\n(Exh. 14) records that the slip found with the packet bears the<br \/>\nsignatures of only the panch witnesses.  This is not the only<br \/>\ndiscrepancy.  PI Rana and PSI Thakor state in their testimony that<br \/>\nthe ganja that was found from the house was in powder form, almost in<br \/>\nthe nature of crushed cannabis.  Even the pacnhnama shows that ganja<br \/>\nfound was crushed and in powder form.  The Forensic Science<br \/>\nLaboratory report however shows that the sample sent to it for<br \/>\nexamination ?Sdry fragmented stem axis, few greenish dried flowers<br \/>\nand a few dried yellow fruits??.  There is a marked difference in<br \/>\nthe nature of ganja stated by the witnesses to have been recovered<br \/>\nand the one sent for examination to the laboratory.  The difference<br \/>\nin form is quite obvious and it is improbable to believe that flowers<br \/>\nand stems could have been mistaken as powder.  We also find from the<br \/>\nrecord that no witness has been examined by the prosecution to prove<br \/>\nthat the seized contraband was securely kept in the police station<br \/>\nbefore being sent to the laboratory for examination.  Only one<br \/>\nwitness, PW-4 Constable Gordhanbhai Ramjibhai has been examined and<br \/>\nhe only deposes about carrying the sealed packet from the police<br \/>\nstation on 9.12.1997 to the laboratory.  Where was the muddamal kept<br \/>\nbetween 7.12.1997 and 9.12.1997 and who kept it is not forthcoming.<br \/>\nNo registers have been produced on record to show that proper entries<br \/>\nregarding the receipt, storage and being sent to laboratory were made<br \/>\nby the police officials.  This is a serious infirmity and though the<br \/>\nsamples were received in the Forensic Science Laboratory in a sealed<br \/>\ncondition, the possibility of them being tampered prior to their<br \/>\nbeing sent to the laboratory cannot be ruled out.  It is true that<br \/>\nprovisions of Sections 52 and 57 of the Act are directory.  Violation<br \/>\nof these provisions would not ipso facto violate the trial or<br \/>\nconviction.  However, the Investigating Officer cannot totally ignore<br \/>\nthese provisions and such failure will have a bearing on appreciation<br \/>\nof evidence regarding arrest of the accused and seizure of the<br \/>\narticle.  Here there is no evidence o record to establish that the<br \/>\nmuddamal parcel was sealed by the officer-in-charge of the police<br \/>\nstation as required under Section 55 of the Act.  Further there is no<br \/>\nevidence to show that the Investigating Officer followed the<br \/>\nprocedure prescribed in Section 57 of the Act of making full report<br \/>\nof all particulars of arrest and seizure to his immediate superior<br \/>\nofficer.  Also, the evidence on record is sketchy and not conclusive<br \/>\non the point that the sample sent to the Chemical Analyser was the<br \/>\nsame that was seized from the house of the accused.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tUnder<br \/>\nthe circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the<br \/>\nprosecution has miserably failed to prove that the muddamal allegedly<br \/>\nrecovered from the house of the respondents was properly seized and<br \/>\nstored prior to it being sent to the laboratory for examination and<br \/>\nthe possibility of it being tampered with or even replaced cannot be<br \/>\nruled out.  Therefore, though not completely agreeing with the<br \/>\nreasoning given by the Trial Court for acquitting the respondents, we<br \/>\nfind that on the basis of the aforesaid evidence and faulty<br \/>\ninvestigation by the prosecution, it would not be safe to convict the<br \/>\nrespondents for a serious offence of possessing and selling ganja.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn<br \/>\nthe result, the appeal filed by the State is therefore dismissed and<br \/>\nthe acquittal of the respondents is confirmed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(Bhagwati<br \/>\nPrasad, J.)<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(S.R.Brahmbhatt,<br \/>\nJ.) <\/p>\n<p>*mohd<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Unknown vs ======================================Appearance on 2 September, 2008 Author: Bhagwati Prasad,&amp;Nbsp;Honourable S.R.Brahmbhatt,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.A\/856\/1998 6\/ 6 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 856 of 1998 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT ====================================== 1 Whether Reporters of [&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-181316","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 v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Unknown vs ======================================Appearance on 2 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\/unknown-vs-appearance-on-2-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Unknown vs ======================================Appearance on 2 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unknown-vs-appearance-on-2-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=\"2008-09-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-15T06:47:18+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/unknown-vs-appearance-on-2-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/unknown-vs-appearance-on-2-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Unknown vs ======================================Appearance on 2 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-15T06:47:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/unknown-vs-appearance-on-2-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1362,\"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\\\/unknown-vs-appearance-on-2-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/unknown-vs-appearance-on-2-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/unknown-vs-appearance-on-2-september-2008\",\"name\":\"Unknown vs ======================================Appearance on 2 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-15T06:47:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/unknown-vs-appearance-on-2-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/unknown-vs-appearance-on-2-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/unknown-vs-appearance-on-2-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Unknown vs ======================================Appearance on 2 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":"Unknown vs ======================================Appearance on 2 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\/unknown-vs-appearance-on-2-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Unknown vs ======================================Appearance on 2 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unknown-vs-appearance-on-2-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":"2008-09-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-15T06:47:18+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unknown-vs-appearance-on-2-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unknown-vs-appearance-on-2-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Unknown vs ======================================Appearance on 2 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-15T06:47:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unknown-vs-appearance-on-2-september-2008"},"wordCount":1362,"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\/unknown-vs-appearance-on-2-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unknown-vs-appearance-on-2-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unknown-vs-appearance-on-2-september-2008","name":"Unknown vs ======================================Appearance on 2 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-15T06:47:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unknown-vs-appearance-on-2-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unknown-vs-appearance-on-2-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unknown-vs-appearance-on-2-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Unknown vs ======================================Appearance on 2 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\/181316","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=181316"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/181316\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=181316"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=181316"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=181316"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}