{"id":183808,"date":"2008-07-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-the-on-8-july-2008"},"modified":"2018-03-09T02:18:54","modified_gmt":"2018-03-08T20:48:54","slug":"appearance-vs-the-on-8-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-the-on-8-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"==========================================Appearance vs The on 8 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">==========================================Appearance vs The on 8 July, 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\/80\/1987\t 5\/ 5\tJUDGMENT \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. 80 of 1987\n \n\n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD  \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT\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\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT \n\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nDHIRUBHAI\nG PATEL AND ANOTHER \n\n \n\n==========================================Appearance\n: \nMR MAULIK NANAVATI, ADDL PUBLIC\nPROSECUTOR for the Appellant \nMR JM PANCHAL for\nthe Opponents \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\nDate\n: 08\/07\/2008 \n\n \n\nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p>(Per<br \/>\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD)<\/p>\n<p>1.\tThe<br \/>\npresent appeal has been preferred  by the State of Gujarat<br \/>\nchallenging the order dated  11.09.1996  passed by the learned<br \/>\nSessions Judge, Valsad at Navsari in Criminal Appeal No.33 of 1986,<br \/>\nwhereby the learned Appellate Judge has set aside the judgment and<br \/>\norder of conviction dated 07.06.1996  passed by the learned J.M.F.C.,<br \/>\nValsad in Summary Case No.2897 of 1995.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tThe<br \/>\nprosecution case, in short, is that Shri Manoj Antani (PW-1) received<br \/>\n secret information  that liquor  was going to be transported into<br \/>\nthe State from Bombay in two cars.  A raiding party was constituted<br \/>\nand on the basis of the information, a black ambassador car bearing<br \/>\nregistration No.MRZ-8257  was intercepted.  Accused No.1  was driving<br \/>\nthe car  and accused No.2  was sitting on the passenger seat.  On<br \/>\nconducting search of the car, 24 bags and 3 cartons were  found<br \/>\ncontaining 907  bottles of whiskey,  brandy, etc.  valuing about<br \/>\nRs.55,900\/-.  Samples  from bottles  were  sent for  chemical<br \/>\nanalysis  and on receipt of  report, charge sheet  was filed.  The<br \/>\naccused  did not plead  guilty and sought trial.  On conclusion of<br \/>\nthe trial, the learned Magistrate  convicted  both the accused<br \/>\npersons for  offences punishable under Sections 65(A), 11(1)(b)  read<br \/>\n with Section 81  of the Bombay Prohibition Act and sentenced  each<br \/>\naccused to imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.3,000\/-.  No<br \/>\nseparate sentence was passed for the offence under Section 81 of the<br \/>\nAct.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\tAn<br \/>\nappeal was preferred before the Sessions Court.  The learned<br \/>\nSessions Judge allowed the said appeal on three  grounds; (i)<br \/>\noffence  was committed on 4.8.1984 and chargesheet was submitted in<br \/>\nCourt on 23.8.1985, i.e. Beyond  a period of six months and the trial<br \/>\nbeing a summary  trial, bar  contained in Section 167(5)  would be<br \/>\nattracted  and, therefore, the Magistrate could not have taken<br \/>\ncognizance of the offence, (ii)  panch witnesses  had  turned<br \/>\nhostile and there being no independent  evidence,  conviction was<br \/>\nbad, and (iii)  no evidence was led by prosecution to show  that<br \/>\nliquor was imported from outside State.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tAggrieved<br \/>\nby the reversal of conviction order  by the learned  Sessions Judge,<br \/>\nthe State has preferred the present appeal. Heard  Mr. Maulik<br \/>\nNanavati, Additional Public Prosecution and Mr. J.M. Panchal  for the<br \/>\naccused- respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tMr.\n<\/p>\n<p>Nanavati, learned counsel for the State, has  submitted that the<br \/>\nreasoning given by the Appellate Judge is erroneous  and, therefore,<br \/>\nthe judgment of acquittal deserves to be set aside and the order of<br \/>\nconviction passed by the learned  Magistrate  be confirmed.  As<br \/>\nregards application under  Section 167(5)  of the Criminal  Procedure<br \/>\nCode,  the learned Prosecutor  relying on a decision of the  Supreme<br \/>\nCourt  reported in (1996) 1 SCC 341<br \/>\nhas  submitted that the language  of Section  clearly  indicates<br \/>\nthat the provisions of  Section 167(5)  will be made  applicable<br \/>\nonly where the investigation is pending and not where the<br \/>\ninvestigation is completed and the cahrgesheet has been filed.  He<br \/>\nhas submitted that in the present case, the investigation had already<br \/>\nbeen completed and, therefore,  there was no occasion to stop the<br \/>\ninvestigation.  Though the chargesheet has been submitted after<br \/>\nexpiry of six months,  no application for discharge  was  ever moved<br \/>\nby the accused nor any objection was taken before the learned<br \/>\nMagistrate  when he took cognizance  of the offence on presentation<br \/>\nof the chargesheet.  He has further  submitted that assuming that it<br \/>\nis an irregularity,  such is  curable  by virtue of provision<br \/>\ncontained in Section 460 of the Code and, therefore, the Appellate<br \/>\nCourt was  wrong in holding that the learned  Magistrate could not<br \/>\nhave taken cognizance  of the offence.  Mr.  Nanavati has further<br \/>\nargued  that  there is no rule of law  that conviction  cannot be<br \/>\nbased on the sole testimony of police  witnesses. He has submitted<br \/>\nthat the corroboration  is only a rule of  prudence  and not a rule<br \/>\nof law.  Lastly, he has  submitted that in view of the presumption<br \/>\ncontained in Section 103  of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949,  the<br \/>\nburden  was on the accused to explain  their possession.  In absence<br \/>\nof any such explanation and the fact that the accused were  traveling<br \/>\nfrom Bombay in a car  bearing  Maharashtra licence registration, the<br \/>\nSessions Judge has erred  in recording a finding  that the<br \/>\nprosecution has failed to establish  import of liquor  by the accused<br \/>\npersons.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\tPer contra,<br \/>\nMr. J.M. Panchal, learned advocate appearing for the accused persons<br \/>\nhas  submitted that apart from the fact  that the offence is very<br \/>\nold, i.e. of the year 1984,  the prosecution has not been able to<br \/>\nestablish sufficiently  and conclusively that the accused persons had<br \/>\nactually imported liquor  from outside State.  The raid  conducted by<br \/>\nthe police is suspect and in absence of any independent<br \/>\ncorroboration, the learned  Appellate Judge has rightly set aside the<br \/>\norder of conviction.  He has further  submitted that even if this<br \/>\nCourt  comes to the conclusion that the bar  contained in Section<br \/>\n167(5) of the Code is not made applicable to the facts of the present<br \/>\ncase, then also, there is no credible  evidence on record  to<br \/>\nestablish  guilt  of the accused. He has also submitted that the<br \/>\ntestimony of police witnesses,  who are  interested  witnesses,  does<br \/>\nnot  inspire  confidence  and no reliance  can be placed upon their<br \/>\nevidence.  He has  supported the reasons  given by the learned<br \/>\nAppellate  Judge and submitted that there is no infirmity or<br \/>\nperversity with the said  findings. The conclusion recorded by the<br \/>\nlearned  Sessions Judge are in consonance with the material  on<br \/>\nrecord and in any case,  view  taken by the learned  Appellate  Judge<br \/>\non the facts of the case  is a possible  view  and, therefore, this<br \/>\nCourt should  not  interfere with the order of acquittal,  more so<br \/>\nafter lapse of  24 years.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\tHaving<br \/>\nconsidered the rival submissions,  we  are of the opinion that the<br \/>\nconscious possession of the driver and cleaner is not correctly<br \/>\nestablished  because both of them were  driver and cleaner  and it is<br \/>\nnot always  possible to attribute  that driver and cleaner  had<br \/>\nknowledge of the fact that what was  loaded  in the truck.  Sometime,<br \/>\nit happens  that they are  only asked  to carry truck.  Conscious<br \/>\npossession of the accused having  been not established,  we  feel<br \/>\nthat  for an offence which had allegedly  taken place  in 1984  and<br \/>\nthe first Appellate  Court has recorded  acquittal, then change in<br \/>\nlaw  should not be pressed against the accused persons because they<br \/>\nbelieve that the law stood on the date when the conviction took<br \/>\nplace,  would  govern  their  case.  In the background of facts,  the<br \/>\npresent appeal deserves no consideration and, therefore, the same is<br \/>\ndismissed.   Bail bond, if any,  stands  cancelled.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tOffice<br \/>\nis directed to send record and proceedings to the Trial Court<br \/>\nconcerned forthwith.\n<\/p>\n<p>(BHAGWATI<br \/>\nPRASAD, J.)<\/p>\n<p>(S.R.BRAHMBHATT,<br \/>\nJ.)<\/p>\n<p>omkar<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court ==========================================Appearance vs The on 8 July, 2008 Author: Bhagwati Prasad,&amp;Nbsp;Honourable S.R.Brahmbhatt,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.A\/80\/1987 5\/ 5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 80 of 1987 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-183808","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>==========================================Appearance vs The on 8 July, 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\/appearance-vs-the-on-8-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"==========================================Appearance vs The on 8 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-the-on-8-july-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=\"2008-07-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-08T20:48:54+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-the-on-8-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-the-on-8-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"==========================================Appearance vs The on 8 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-08T20:48:54+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-the-on-8-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1124,\"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\\\/appearance-vs-the-on-8-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-the-on-8-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-the-on-8-july-2008\",\"name\":\"==========================================Appearance vs The on 8 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-08T20:48:54+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-the-on-8-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-the-on-8-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-the-on-8-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"==========================================Appearance vs The on 8 July, 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":"==========================================Appearance vs The on 8 July, 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\/appearance-vs-the-on-8-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"==========================================Appearance vs The on 8 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-the-on-8-july-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-07-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-08T20:48:54+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-the-on-8-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-the-on-8-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"==========================================Appearance vs The on 8 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-08T20:48:54+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-the-on-8-july-2008"},"wordCount":1124,"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\/appearance-vs-the-on-8-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-the-on-8-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-the-on-8-july-2008","name":"==========================================Appearance vs The on 8 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-08T20:48:54+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-the-on-8-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-the-on-8-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-the-on-8-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"==========================================Appearance vs The on 8 July, 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\/183808","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=183808"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/183808\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=183808"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=183808"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=183808"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}