{"id":96379,"date":"2008-07-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-the-on-28-july-2008"},"modified":"2016-01-10T20:00:22","modified_gmt":"2016-01-10T14:30:22","slug":"appearance-vs-the-on-28-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-the-on-28-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"==========================================Appearance vs The on 28 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
==========================================Appearance vs The on 28 July, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: Bhagwati Prasad,&Nbsp;Honourable S.R.Brahmbhatt,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   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\/1112\/1985\t 6\/ 6\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. 1112 of 1985\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\nTHE\nSTATE OF GUJARAT \n\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nAHER\nVAJSI MERAG AND OTHERS \n\n \n\n==========================================Appearance\n: \nMR MAULIK\nNANAVATI, ADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the\nAppellant \nNOTICE SERVED for Opponent(s) : 1, 12, 16, 24, \nMR ND\nNANAVATI for Opponent(s) : 2 - 11,13 - 15,17 - 23,26 - 27. \n- for\nOpponent(s) : 0.0.0  \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 \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\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: 28\/07\/2008 \n\n \n\nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD)<\/p>\n
1.\tThe
\npresent appeal calls in question the correctness of judgment and
\norder dated 25.06.1985 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,
\nJamnagar in Sessions Case No. 27 of 84 acquitting the present
\nrespondents of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302
\nof the Indian Penal Code and Section 25(1) and 27 of the Arms Act.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tTwenty
\nseven persons were put on trial for rioting and murder of Aher Bogha
\nKarsan, Ramsi Bogha, Mulu Bogha, Vajsi Bogha and Khima Hamir.  All
\nthe accused persons were alleged to have formed an unlawful assembly
\nand armed with firearms, sharp weapons and sticks are stated to have
\nattacked the deceased and one Dosa Kesar and caused fatal injuries to
\nthe deceased at about 9:00am in the sim of village Asota.  While
\nBogha Karsan, Ramsi Bogha and Vajsi Bogha are stated to have died on
\nthe spot, Mulu Bogha and Khima Hamir succumbed to their injuries on
\ntheir way to the hospital.  Dosa Kesar who was accompanying the
\ndeceased but fled on being attacked by the accused is stated to have
\ninformed one Foga Bogha about the incident who eventually registered
\na complaint with the Khambhalia Police Station.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tAs
\nmany as 27 witnesses were examined by the prosecution in support of
\nits case, including the doctors who conducted autopsy of the deceased
\nand panch witnesses.  It is not in dispute, however, that all the
\ndeceased died a homicidal death.  Now coming to the witnesses
\nexamined by the prosecution to connect the respondents with the
\ncrime, the Trial Court has observed that all the witnesses –   Kesur
\nJesa PW-5, Alsi Jesa PW-6, Kana Jesa PW-7, Amriben Jesa PW-8, and
\nMuriben Jesa PW-9, who were residing near the wadi, where the
\nincident took place have not supported the case of the prosecution
\nand have been declared hostile.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tThe
\nentire prosecution case rests on Dosa Kesar (PW-4) who was with the
\ndeceased at the time of attack and the evidence of Foga Bogha (PW-3)
\nwho lodged complaint with the police.  The Trial Court has found that
\nthe evidence of Dosa Kesar is not of much help to the prosecution as
\nhe admits to have run away on seeing the assailants and thus has not
\nwitnessed the incident.  He also does not state as to who caused what
\ninjury to the deceased.  As regards Foga Bogha, he is not an
\neye-witness and was only informed about the incident by Dosa Kesar.
\nHis evidence has also not been found reliable.  Even circumstantial
\nevidence put forth by the prosecution did not connect the accused
\nwith the crime.  The Trial Court, therefore, acquitted all the
\naccused persons.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tWe
\nhave heard Mr. Maulik Nanavati, Additional Public Prosecutor for the
\nState and Mr. Nirad Buch, Advocate for the respondents.  We have
\nperused the judgment of the Trial Court and have also gone through
\nthe entire record of the case.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tMr.\n<\/p>\n
Nanavati, learned Counsel for the State, has strenuously argued that
\nthe Trial Court has wrongly disbelieved the evidence of PW 4 -Dosa
\nKesar, more particularly when he has witnessed the incident and
\nidentified the assailants.  He has submitted that despite the other
\nwitnesses having turned hostile, conviction can be recorded on the
\nevidence of one witness if he is found to be reliable.  There cannot
\nbe any dispute regarding the said proposition of law.  It is the
\nquality of evidence and not the number of witnesses which can bring
\nhome the charge of guilt.  However, in the instant case, as rightly
\nobserved by the Trial Court, the evidence of Dosa Kesar is not
\nconvincing.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tIn
\nthe fight that ensued between two parties, one Parbat Pala is also
\nstated to have died and for which a cross complaint has been
\nregistered by the assailants.  Dosa Kesar does not speak about death
\nof Parbat Pala nor does death of Parbat Pala find mention in the
\nentire investigation.  Also Dosa Kesar admits that immediately on
\nhearing the first gun shot, he started running to save his life and
\nhid himself in the neighbouring house.  He, therefore, does not know
\nwhat actually happened and how the deceased sustained injuries.
\nAlso, he has not been able to name the persons who formed the
\nattacking group.  The Trial Court has noticed that this witness with
\ngreat difficulty could give names of few persons only and
\nsurprisingly, some such names do not find mention in the police
\ncomplaint.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tThe
\nTrial Court, therefore, arrived at a conclusion that the evidence of
\nthis witness does not inspire confidence and is unreliable.  The
\nTrial Court has also noticed several material contradictions in the
\nevidence of this witness and Foga Bogha as to the names of
\nassailants, place of incident, who removed the deceased to the
\nhospital and how they were removed.  Some names not stated by Dosa
\nKesar have been given in the complaint lodged by Foga Bogha.  It is
\nindeed surprising as to how Foga Bogha, who has not seen the incident
\nand was only conveyed about it by Dosa Kesar mentioned the names of
\nthose persons when he was not informed about them by Dosa Kesar.  As
\nregards the evidence of recovery of weapon of offence by the accused,
\nwe find that the same is not at all convincing.  The weapon allegedly
\nused by the accused and recovered at their instance is a tamancha
\nwhereas cartridges fired from a 0.12 bore pistol were found in the
\nbody of the deceased and were recovered from the site of offence.
\nTherefore, the Trial Court has rightly observed that the
\ncorroborating evidence adduced by the prosecution also does not
\nsupport its case and in fact casts a doubt over the version given by
\nthe witnesses.\n<\/p>\n
9.\tWe
\n find in the case that the investigation was set in motion with the
\nlodging of the F.I.R. by Foga Bogha PW 3.  He is not an eye witness.
\nSource of information of this witness is PW 4 Dosa Kesar.  In the
\nFIR,  names of  such persons  find mention which were not given out
\nby PW 4 Dosa Kesar.  Thus   over  and above the names given by Dosa
\nKesar PW 4,  some more names have been added or included by
\ncomplainant.  Thus, the entire  edifice of the prosecution case is
\nreplete  with over-implication.\n<\/p>\n
10.\tAccording
\nto the PW 4, he has not seen the actual incident. This speaks for his
\nignorance  of the death of a person from the accused side. If he was
\nnot aware of the death from the side of the accused then it stands to
\nreason that he does not know the details of the incident. It was a
\nmelee  where  both the parties  quarreled and  sustained injury.
\nInference of pre-fight  can be safely  drawn.  In absence of
\nassertion of  individual participation, it cannot be said that the
\nconclusion of the trial Court is perverse or  not  in accordance with
\nlaw.\n<\/p>\n
11.\tFor
\nthe foregoing reasons, we do not find that the findings given by the
\nTrial Court for acquitting the accused are perverse, conjectural or
\ncontrary to the evidence on record.  On the contrary, we are of the
\nconsidered opinion that the reasons are cogent, sufficient and
\ncorrect.  No interference is called for by this Court.  The appeal
\nmust fail and is, accordingly, dismissed. Bail bonds stand cancelled.\n<\/p>\n
(BHAGWATI
\nPRASAD, J.)<\/p>\n
(S.R.BRAHMBHATT,
\nJ.)<\/p>\n
omkar<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court ==========================================Appearance vs The on 28 July, 2008 Author: Bhagwati Prasad,&Nbsp;Honourable S.R.Brahmbhatt,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.A\/1112\/1985 6\/ 6 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1112 of 1985 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT ========================================== 1 Whether Reporters of […]<\/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-96379","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\n==========================================Appearance vs The on 28 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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-28-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 28 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-the-on-28-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-07-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-10T14:30:22+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=\"7 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-28-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-the-on-28-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"==========================================Appearance vs The on 28 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-10T14:30:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-the-on-28-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1225,\"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-28-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-the-on-28-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-the-on-28-july-2008\",\"name\":\"==========================================Appearance vs The on 28 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-10T14:30:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-the-on-28-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-the-on-28-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-the-on-28-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 28 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 28 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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-28-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"==========================================Appearance vs The on 28 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-the-on-28-july-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-07-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-10T14:30:22+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-the-on-28-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-the-on-28-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"==========================================Appearance vs The on 28 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-10T14:30:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-the-on-28-july-2008"},"wordCount":1225,"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-28-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-the-on-28-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-the-on-28-july-2008","name":"==========================================Appearance vs The on 28 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-10T14:30:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-the-on-28-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-the-on-28-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-the-on-28-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 28 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\/96379","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=96379"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/96379\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=96379"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=96379"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=96379"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}