{"id":228379,"date":"2010-08-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-08-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-25-august-2010"},"modified":"2018-07-02T08:40:49","modified_gmt":"2018-07-02T03:10:49","slug":"appearance-vs-unknown-on-25-august-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-25-august-2010","title":{"rendered":"Appearance : vs Unknown on 25 August, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Appearance : vs Unknown on 25 August, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: A.M.Kapadia,&amp;Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice J.C.Upadhyaya,&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\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCR.MA\/453\/2010\t 9\/ 9\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\nMISC.APPLICATION No. 453 of 2010\n \n\nwith\n\n\n \n\nCRIMINAL\nAPPEAL No. 102 of 2010\n \n\n \n=========================================\n\n\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT \n\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nRAMSWARUP\nRAMKISHOR SHAH \n\n \n\n=========================================\n \nAppearance : \nMR.\nL.B.DABHI, APP for Applicant(s) : 1, \nMR JV\nJAPEE for Respondent(s) :\n1, \n========================================= \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 A.M.KAPADIA\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 J.C.UPADHYAYA\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 25\/08\/2010 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p>(Per<br \/>\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA)<\/p>\n<p>\tBy means<br \/>\n\tof filing this Application under Section 378 (1)(3) of the Code of<br \/>\n\tCriminal Procedure ( the Code  for short), the Applicant<br \/>\n\tState of Gujarat has prayed to grant leave to file Criminal Appeal<br \/>\n\tNo. 102 of 2010, which is directed against the judgment and order<br \/>\n\tdated 2.7.2009 rendered in Sessions Case No. 124 of 2007 by the<br \/>\n\tlearned Additional Sessions Judge, Sabarkantha at Modasa, recording<br \/>\n\tacquittal of the Respondent accused ( the accused  for short)<br \/>\n\tfor the offences punishable under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive<br \/>\n\tSubstances Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe<br \/>\n\tprosecution case as disclosed in the FIR and unfolded during trial<br \/>\n\tis that;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2.1\t\tPSI<br \/>\n\tG.V.Paderia on 25.4.2001 while he was in Himmatnagar Town Police<br \/>\n\tStation, received a secret information to the effect that the<br \/>\n\taccused in his go-down has stored explosive substances namely<br \/>\n\tDetonators and Gelatin Detonators without any pass or permit.  Upon<br \/>\n\treceipt of such information, a raid was arranged and according to<br \/>\n\tthe prosecution case when the go-down of the accused was raided by<br \/>\n\tPSI   G.V.Paderia and other members of the raiding party, in<br \/>\n\tpresence of panchas, in all 236 Gelatin Detonators and 11 caps came<br \/>\n\tto be seized in presence of the accused and upon demand of any<br \/>\n\tlicense, pass or permit, nothing was presented by the accused.  PSI<br \/>\n\t  G.V.Paderia reported the said incident in the police station and<br \/>\n\this FIR was registered.  During the course of investigation,<br \/>\n\tstatements of members of the raiding party and other relevant<br \/>\n\twitnesses were recorded.  After obtaining due sanction from District<br \/>\n\tMagistrate, Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar, charge sheet came to be<br \/>\n\tfiled in the Court of learned JMFC, Modasa.  Since the offence is<br \/>\n\texclusively triable by the Sessions Court, learned JMFC, Modasa<br \/>\n\tcommitted the case to the Sessions Court, Sabarkantha at<br \/>\n\tHimmatnagar, which was registered as Sessions Case No.124 of 2007<br \/>\n\tand the same was made over for trial to the Court of learned<br \/>\n\tAdditional Sessions Judge, Sabarkantha, camp at Modasa.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2.2\t\tThe<br \/>\n\ttrial Court framed charge against the accused to which he did not<br \/>\n\tplead guilty and claimed to be tried.  Thereupon, the prosecution<br \/>\n\thas adduced its oral and documentary evidence.  The prosecution<br \/>\n\texamined 11 witnesses and produced relevant documents detailed in<br \/>\n\tparagraph 5 and 6 respectively in the impugned judgment and order.<br \/>\n\tAfter the prosecution concluded its oral evidence, the trial Court<br \/>\n\trecorded further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the<br \/>\n\tCode and the accused in his further statement denied generally all<br \/>\n\tthe incriminating circumstances put to him by the trial Court and<br \/>\n\tstated that he was falsely implicated in this case.  After<br \/>\n\tconsidering the evidence on record and the submissions advanced on<br \/>\n\tbehalf of both the sides, the trial Court came to the conclusion<br \/>\n\tthat the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond any reasonable<br \/>\n\tdoubt and ultimately recorded his acquittal, which has given rise to<br \/>\n\tthis State Appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tWe have<br \/>\n\tconsidered the submissions advanced by Mr. L.B.Dabhi, learned APP<br \/>\n\tfor the Applicant   State of Gujarat, we have perused the impugned<br \/>\n\tjudgment and order so also the record and proceedings of Sessions<br \/>\n\tCase No. 124 of 2007 called for by us from the trial Court vide<br \/>\n\torder dated 5.8.2010. This Court has also undertaken a complete and<br \/>\n\tcomprehensive appreciation of all vital features of the case and the<br \/>\n\tentire evidence on record with reference to broad and reasonable<br \/>\n\tprobabilities of the case.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tAt the<br \/>\n\toutset, perusing the record and proceedings of the case, it is clear<br \/>\n\tthat so far as two panchas namely PW-1   Sikandarbhai Yusufbhai<br \/>\n\tMansuri and PW-2   Natvarbhai Becharbhai Patel, who were Panchas<br \/>\n\tin seizure panchnama, did not support the case of the prosecution so<br \/>\n\talso the contents of the seizure panchnama and they were declared as<br \/>\n\thostile witnesses.  In the result, the entire prosecution case rests<br \/>\n\tupon the testimonies of first informant   PSI G.V.Paderia and<br \/>\n\tother members of the raiding party, who were police officers<br \/>\n\texamined by the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tWe have<br \/>\n\tperused the evidence of police witnesses, including the first<br \/>\n\tinformant PSI   G.V.Paderia.  At the time when the raid was<br \/>\n\tconducted, Detonators and Gelatin Detonators as well as Caps came to<br \/>\n\tbe seized.  However, considering their evidence, and as observed by<br \/>\n\tthe trial Court in the impugned judgment and order, no document came<br \/>\n\tto be recovered connecting the accused with the go-down.  These<br \/>\n\twitnesses admitted in their testimonies that nothing was recovered<br \/>\n\tto show that at the time of the alleged seizure and recovery, the<br \/>\n\taccused was either owner of the go-down or was in possession of the<br \/>\n\tgo-down.  The trial Court therefore observed that the prosecution<br \/>\n\tfailed to establish the nexus of the accused with the go-down from<br \/>\n\twhere the alleged recovery was made.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tExamining<br \/>\n\tthe sanction (Exh. 28) issued by the District Magistrate under<br \/>\n\tSection 7 of the Explosive Substances Act, the trial Court observed<br \/>\n\tthat the prosecution examined PW-4   Shaileshkumar Bhagabhai<br \/>\n\tPrajapati to prove the sanction (Exh.28), but considering the<br \/>\n\tevidence of this witness, he categorically stated that he had no<br \/>\n\tpersonal knowledge about the sanction.  This witness further<br \/>\n\tadmitted that he cannot say as to whether the sanctioning authority<br \/>\n\tissued the sanction after perusing the relevant papers.  The trial<br \/>\n\tCourt further observed that considering the sanction (Exh.28),<br \/>\n\tnothing emerges that before according the sanction, the sanctioning<br \/>\n\tauthority had perused the relevant papers of this case.  The trial<br \/>\n\tCourt ultimately observed that the sanction as accorded was without<br \/>\n\tany application of mind.  The trial Court further observed that no<br \/>\n\tendorsement was made in relevant police station register regarding<br \/>\n\tthe receipt of the secret information and as admitted by PSI<br \/>\n\tG.V.Paderia, he categorically stated that regarding receipt of<br \/>\n\tsecret information by him, no note was made either by him or by<br \/>\n\tpolice station officer in register maintained in the police station.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe trial<br \/>\n\tCourt in the result   examining, analyzing and scrutinizing the<br \/>\n\toral and documentary evidence as adduced by the prosecution,<br \/>\n\tultimately, came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to<br \/>\n\tprove its case beyond any reasonable doubt and that the accused was<br \/>\n\tentitled to the benefit of doubt and ultimately recorded his<br \/>\n\tacquittal.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tOn overall<br \/>\n\t view of the matter, according to us, the prosecution has not been<br \/>\n\table to bring home the charge levelled against the accused and the<br \/>\n\tcomplicity of the accused for commission of the offence is not<br \/>\n\testablished as there is no evidence against the accused to connect<br \/>\n\thim with the alleged crime.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn view of<br \/>\n\tthe unsatisfactory evidence led by the prosecution, we are of the<br \/>\n\tconsidered opinion that no illegality or infirmity has been<br \/>\n\tcommitted by the trial Court in acquitting the accused of the<br \/>\n\toffences with which he was charged.  We find ourselves in complete<br \/>\n\tagreement with the ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of<br \/>\n\tacquittal, as, in our view, no other conclusion was possible except<br \/>\n\tthe one reached by the trial Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThis is an<br \/>\n\tacquittal appeal. The principles which would govern and regulate the<br \/>\n\thearing of appeal by the High Court against an order of acquittal<br \/>\n\tpassed by the Trial Court have been very succinctly explained by the<br \/>\n\tSupreme Court in the matter of  AJIT SAVANT MAJAGAVI VS. STATE<br \/>\n\tOF KARNATAKA, reported in AIR 1997 SC 3255.\n<\/p>\n<p>(a)<br \/>\n\tIn an appeal against an order of acquittal, the High Court possesses<br \/>\n\tall the powers, and nothing less than the powers it possesses while<br \/>\n\thearing an appeal against an order of conviction.\n<\/p>\n<p>(b)<br \/>\n\tThe High Court has the power to reconsider the whole issue,<br \/>\n\treappraise the evidence and come to its own conclusion and findings<br \/>\n\tin place of the findings recorded by trial court, if the said<br \/>\n\tfindings are against the weight of the evidence on record, or in<br \/>\n\tother words, perverse.\n<\/p>\n<p>(c)<br \/>\n\tBefore reversing the finding of acquittal, the High Court has to<br \/>\n\tconsider each ground on which the order of acquittal was based and<br \/>\n\tto record its own reasons for not accepting those grounds not<br \/>\n\tsubscribing to the view expressed by the trial Court that the<br \/>\n\taccused is entitled to acquittal.\n<\/p>\n<p>(d)<br \/>\n\tIn reversing the finding of acquittal, the High Court has to keep in<br \/>\n\tview the fact that the presumption of innocence is still available<br \/>\n\tin favour of the accused and the same stands fortified and<br \/>\n\tstrengthened by the order of acquittal passed in his favour by the<br \/>\n\ttrial Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>(e)<br \/>\n\tIf the High Court, on a fresh scrutiny and reappraised of the<br \/>\n\tevidence and other material on record, is of the opinion that there<br \/>\n\tis another view which can be reasonably taken, then the view which<br \/>\n\tfavours the accused should be adopted.\n<\/p>\n<p>(f)<br \/>\n\tThe High Court has also to keep in mind that the trial Court had the<br \/>\n\tadvantage of looking at the demeanour of witnesses and observing<br \/>\n\ttheir conduct in the Court, especially in the witness box.\n<\/p>\n<p>(g)<br \/>\n\tThe High Court has also to keep in mind that even at that stage, the<br \/>\n\taccused was entitled to benefit of doubt. The doubt should be such<br \/>\n\tas a reasonable person would honestly and conscientiously entertain<br \/>\n\tas to the guilt of the accused.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t<a href=\"\/doc\/1258127\/\">In  ANOKH<br \/>\n\tSINGH vs. STATE OF PUNJAB,<\/a> reported in AIR 1992 SC p.598,<br \/>\n\tSupreme Court has held that in an appeal against acquittal, the High<br \/>\n\tCourt should attach greater weight to appreciation of evidence by<br \/>\n\tthe Trial Judge who had the occasion to watch the demeanour of the<br \/>\n\twitnesses.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIt is a<br \/>\n\tcardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that in an acquittal<br \/>\n\tappeal if  other view is  possible then also appellate Court cannot<br \/>\n\tsubstitute its own view by reversing the acquittal into  conviction,<br \/>\n\tunless  the  findings  of  the trial Court are perverse,  contrary<br \/>\n\tto  the  material on  record, palpably  wrong, manifestly erroneous<br \/>\n\tor demonstrably unsustainable.  <a href=\"\/doc\/303029\/\">(See  Ramesh Babulal Doshi  V.<br \/>\n\tState of Gujarat<\/a> (1996) 9 SCC 225).  In the instant case, the<br \/>\n\tlearned APP has not been able  to  point out to us as to how the<br \/>\n\tfindings recorded  by the trial Court are perverse,  contrary  to<br \/>\n\tmaterial on record, palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous  or<br \/>\n\tdemonstrably unsustainable.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tOn overall<br \/>\n\tappreciation of evidence,  this Court is  satisfied  that  there is<br \/>\n\tno infirmity in the reasons assigned  by  the trial Court  for<br \/>\n\tacquitting the accused.  Suffice it to say that the trial Court has<br \/>\n\tgiven cogent and convincing  reasons  for  acquitting the accused<br \/>\n\tand the learned A.P.P. has  failed to dislodge the reasons given by<br \/>\n\tthe trial Court and  convince  this  Court  to take  a  view<br \/>\n\tcontrary to the one taken by the trial Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tSeen  in<br \/>\n\tthe  above  context, we do not find any valid reason or justifiable<br \/>\n\tground to interfere with the impugned  judgment<br \/>\n\tand order acquitting the accused of the offences with  which  he was<br \/>\n\tcharged.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tFor the<br \/>\n\tforegoing reasons, the application fails and accordingly it is<br \/>\n\trejected.  Resultantly, leave to appeal is refused, and as a<br \/>\n\tconsequence thereof, Criminal Appeal no. 102 of 2010 is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>(A.M.\n<\/p>\n<p>Kapadia, J.)<\/p>\n<p>(J.C.Upadhyaya,<br \/>\nJ.)<\/p>\n<p>\tJayanti*<\/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 Unknown on 25 August, 2010 Author: A.M.Kapadia,&amp;Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice J.C.Upadhyaya,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.MA\/453\/2010 9\/ 9 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 453 of 2010 with CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 102 of 2010 ========================================= STATE OF GUJARAT Versus RAMSWARUP RAMKISHOR SHAH [&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-228379","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>Appearance : vs Unknown on 25 August, 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\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-25-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Appearance : vs Unknown on 25 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-25-august-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=\"2010-08-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-02T03:10:49+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=\"9 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-unknown-on-25-august-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-25-august-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Appearance : vs Unknown on 25 August, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-02T03:10:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-25-august-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1817,\"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-unknown-on-25-august-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-25-august-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-25-august-2010\",\"name\":\"Appearance : vs Unknown on 25 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-02T03:10:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-25-august-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-25-august-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-25-august-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Appearance : vs Unknown on 25 August, 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":"Appearance : vs Unknown on 25 August, 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\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-25-august-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Appearance : vs Unknown on 25 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-25-august-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-08-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-02T03:10:49+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-25-august-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-25-august-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Appearance : vs Unknown on 25 August, 2010","datePublished":"2010-08-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-02T03:10:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-25-august-2010"},"wordCount":1817,"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-unknown-on-25-august-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-25-august-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-25-august-2010","name":"Appearance : vs Unknown on 25 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-08-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-02T03:10:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-25-august-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-25-august-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-unknown-on-25-august-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Appearance : vs Unknown on 25 August, 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\/228379","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=228379"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/228379\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=228379"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=228379"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=228379"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}