{"id":62503,"date":"2008-07-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-the-on-23-july-2008"},"modified":"2015-05-23T02:54:07","modified_gmt":"2015-05-22T21:24:07","slug":"appearance-vs-the-on-23-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-the-on-23-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"==========================================Appearance vs The on 23 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">==========================================Appearance vs The on 23 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\/2\/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. 2 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\nKOLI\nMOHAN SHARDUL AND ANOTHER \n\n \n\n==========================================Appearance\n: \nMR MAULIK\nNANAVATI, ASSTT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the\nAppellant \nMR MR YAGNIK FOR MR ND NANAVATI for the Opponents\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 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: 23\/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 filed by the State of Gujarat against the<br \/>\norder of acquittal dated 26.9.1986 passed by the Assistant Sessions<br \/>\nJudge, Junagadh in Sessions Case No.58 of 1985.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tThe<br \/>\nfacts, in brief,  are  such that it is the case of the prosecution<br \/>\nthat complainant -P.S.I.  Kesarbhai Chaudhari (PW 3) alongwith other<br \/>\nPolice officers  had to carry out a prohibition raid at Sejdivadi<br \/>\nvillage on 2.1.1998 at about 7.45 p.m.  As  no liquor  was found in<br \/>\nthe village,  the raiding party had gone to Nava Bandar Custom Chowky<br \/>\n and had reached there at about 7.30 p.m.<\/p>\n<p>3.\tThe<br \/>\npanch witnesses  were called and they were informed by the raiding<br \/>\nparty about the purpose of their visit. At that point of time,  the<br \/>\npolice officers saw one person carrying a cane of liquor and they,<br \/>\nimmediately, chased and arrested him. On inquiry, the arrested person<br \/>\n disclosed  his name as Mohan Shardul, accused No.1. Thereafter, the<br \/>\npolice party alongwith the panch witnesses got on board a boat<br \/>\nalongwith the arrested accused.   About 8- 10 persons also got on the<br \/>\nboat and inquired from the raiding party as to why they were taking<br \/>\naway their owner.  The police party appraised them of the reason for<br \/>\narrest of  accused Mohan. They were also instructed not to interfere<br \/>\nwith their official work.  The persons who subsequently got on board<br \/>\nasked  the police to release accused Mohan.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tAs<br \/>\n the police  refused to release Mohan, accused No.2 Koli Bhikha alias<br \/>\nGhela Jetha gave a blow on the head of PSI Chaudhari  with a sailing<br \/>\noar.  The other accused persons, thereafter, gave stick blows to PSI<br \/>\nChaudhari and other police officers and the panch witnesses.  During<br \/>\nthe scuffle,  accused No.2  gave a push to PSI  Chaudhary.  As  a<br \/>\nresult of  which, he fell over the boat into the water.  Some other<br \/>\npolice officers, who were standing nearby,  saw  the incident and<br \/>\nrushed to the rescue  of the raiding party and also fired  two rounds<br \/>\nfrom the service revolver to disperse the assailants.  Thereafter,<br \/>\nthe complaint was lodged against 10 accused persons  for the offences<br \/>\npunishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 332 and 353  read with<br \/>\nSection 34 of the Indian Penal Code.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tThe<br \/>\nTrial Court,  after appreciating the evidence, acquitted all the<br \/>\naccused persons mainly for the reason  that the prosecution has not<br \/>\nled any evidence to establish the identity of accused Nos.3 to 10.<br \/>\nAdmittedly, as per the witnesses,  these accused persons were not<br \/>\nknown to them and no test identification parade was held to establish<br \/>\ntheir identity. As  regards  accused No.2,  the  Trial Court has<br \/>\nnoticed  that the incident  has occurred at about 8.00 p.m.  on the<br \/>\nwinter night. There is no evidence on record to show that there was<br \/>\nsufficient light on the boat so as to enable the complainant to<br \/>\nnotice and identify  accused No.2.  Also, no  test  identification<br \/>\nparade was held  immediately after the arrest of accused No.2  to<br \/>\nestablish  conclusively  his identity.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\tThe<br \/>\nTrial Court has also noticed that there are several discrepancies in<br \/>\nthe  testimonies of the eye witnesses as to who pushed the<br \/>\ncomplainant  of the boat.  As regards  accused No.1, the Trial Court<br \/>\nhas observed that no overt act of causing any  injury  has been<br \/>\nattributed  to accused Mohan.  Also, there is no evidence to show<br \/>\nthat accused Mohan  called upon the other accused persons to help in<br \/>\nreleasing him from the custody of police. The Trial Court, therefore,<br \/>\ndid not accept the case of the prosecution for convicting the accused<br \/>\nfor substantive offices read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal<br \/>\nCode.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\tWe<br \/>\nhave Mr. Nanavati, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State<br \/>\nand Mr. M.R. Yagnik, learned advocate for the respondent-accused. We<br \/>\nhave also perused the record of the trial Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\tMr.\n<\/p>\n<p>Nanavati has fairly  submitted that there is no evidence on record to<br \/>\nprove that an attack was made on the raiding party at the behest or<br \/>\non the call of accused Mohan. He has, however, submitted that the<br \/>\nTrial Court was in error in acquitting original accused No.2  He has<br \/>\nsubmitted that the prosecution has led evidence of police officers,<br \/>\nall of whom have unequivocally stated that accused No.2 had inflicted<br \/>\na blow  with a sailing oar on the head of PSI Chaudhary.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.\tThe<br \/>\nmedical evidence also proves injury on the head. As regards identity<br \/>\nof accused No.2 is concerned, Mr. Nanavati has submitted that Psi<br \/>\nChaudhary  as well as other police officers who were standing beside<br \/>\nChaudhary have identified the accused in the Court. He has,<br \/>\ntherefore, submitted that the acquittal as regards accused No.2 be<br \/>\nset aside and the present appeal to that extent be allowed.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.\tWe<br \/>\nhave heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the<br \/>\nrecord. The question of identity of the accused is of paramount<br \/>\nimportance  in the case. The accused were not  known to the police<br \/>\nparty prior before. The other accused  had made  their escape good.<br \/>\nIdentification in Court is not held to be of any worth unless<br \/>\npreceded by earlier identification.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.\tWhen<br \/>\nthe acquittal of other accused persons is not challenged, it becomes<br \/>\na case where the identity of accused No.2  cannot be considered to be<br \/>\nof conclusive value. No instigation is established to have been given<br \/>\nby  accused No.1  of any kind.  Any  act of unknown person cannot,<br \/>\ntherefore, be of incriminating nature,  more particularly in an<br \/>\nappeal  against acquittal.\n<\/p>\n<p>12.\tWe<br \/>\ndo not think  that  any perversity is committed by the Trial Court in<br \/>\nrecording the findings of  acquittal by the  Trial Court.  Thus,  we<br \/>\nthink  that when one possible view  has  been taken by the Trial<br \/>\nCourt, it would not be  appropriate  to disturb the findings.<br \/>\nConsequently, we  dismiss  the appeal  and uphold the acquittal.<br \/>\nBail bonds of the accused  are  cancelled.\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 23 July, 2008 Author: Bhagwati Prasad,&amp;Nbsp;Honourable S.R.Brahmbhatt,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.A\/2\/1987 5\/ 5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2 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-62503","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 23 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-23-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 23 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-23-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=\"2008-07-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-22T21:24:07+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-23-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-the-on-23-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"==========================================Appearance vs The on 23 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-22T21:24:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-the-on-23-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":988,\"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-23-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-the-on-23-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-the-on-23-july-2008\",\"name\":\"==========================================Appearance vs The on 23 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-22T21:24:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-the-on-23-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-the-on-23-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-the-on-23-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 23 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 23 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-23-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"==========================================Appearance vs The on 23 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-the-on-23-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":"2008-07-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-22T21:24:07+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-23-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-the-on-23-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"==========================================Appearance vs The on 23 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-22T21:24:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-the-on-23-july-2008"},"wordCount":988,"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-23-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-the-on-23-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-the-on-23-july-2008","name":"==========================================Appearance vs The on 23 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-22T21:24:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-the-on-23-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-the-on-23-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-the-on-23-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 23 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\/62503","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=62503"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/62503\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=62503"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=62503"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=62503"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}