THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs NARENDRASINH @ MUKESHBHAI AMARATBHAI PUJARA Advocate - M U BARIYA — 534/2024
Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(A)(E). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 05th May 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJAR050006432024
Filing Number
534/2024
Filing Date
28-Jun-2024
Registration No
534/2024
Registration Date
28-Jun-2024
Court
TALUKA COURT, MALPUR
Judge
1-Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
05-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
Last updated 29-Jun-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
11188006230317
Police Station
MALPUR POLICE STATION - ARVALLI @ MODASA DISTRICT
Year
2023
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.NARENDRASINH @ MUKESHBHAI AMARATBHAI PUJARA Advocate - M U BARIYA
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
05-May-2026
JudegementView PDF
Case Summary: State of Gujarat v. Narendrasinh @ Mukeshbhai Amaratbhai Pujara Court Decision: The court acquitted the accused Narendrasinh of charges under the Prohibition Act, Section 65(e). The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt because the five panchas (witnesses) who conducted the search contradicted the prosecution's claims, and critical evidence lacked independent corroboration. The police investigation contained significant gaps regarding how contraband was seized, the chain of custody, and forensic analysis. Key Reasoning: The court emphasized that when mandatory panchas are required during a search, police testimony must be corroborated by independent evidence. Since the panchas neither supported the prosecution nor the police narrative, and the government failed to establish proper chain of custody or provide authentic documentation of seized foreign liquor bottles, the accused was entitled to benefit of doubt under criminal procedure standards. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
05-May-2026
Disposed
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
20-Apr-2026
Further Statement
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
24-Mar-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
27-Jan-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
24-Dec-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
14-Nov-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
10-Sep-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
04-Aug-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
23-Jun-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
02-Jun-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
07-Apr-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
24-Feb-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
27-Jan-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
09-Dec-2024
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
07-Oct-2024
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
05-Aug-2024
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
28-Jun-2024
Case filed
Registration No. 534/2024
Case Summary: State of Gujarat v. Narendrasinh @ Mukeshbhai Amaratbhai Pujara Court Decision: The court acquitted the accused Narendrasinh of charges under the Prohibition Act, Section 65(e). The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt because the five panchas (witnesses) who conducted the search contradicted the prosecution's claims, and critical evidence lacked independent corroboration. The police investigation contained significant gaps regarding how contraband was seized, the chain of custody, and forensic analysis. Key Reasoning: The court emphasized that when mandatory panchas are required during a search, police testimony must be corroborated by independent evidence. Since the panchas neither supported the prosecution nor the police narrative, and the government failed to establish proper chain of custody or provide authentic documentation of seized foreign liquor bottles, the accused was entitled to benefit of doubt under criminal procedure standards. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts