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.

Case disposed

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

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(A)(E)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF GUJARAT

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.NARENDRASINH @ MUKESHBHAI AMARATBHAI PUJARA Advocate - M U BARIYA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 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.

  3. 05-May-2026

    Disposed

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  4. 20-Apr-2026

    Further Statement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  5. 24-Mar-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  6. 27-Jan-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  7. 24-Dec-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  8. 14-Nov-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  9. 10-Sep-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  10. 04-Aug-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  11. 23-Jun-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  12. 02-Jun-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  13. 07-Apr-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  14. 24-Feb-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  15. 27-Jan-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  16. 09-Dec-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  17. 07-Oct-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  18. 05-Aug-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  19. 28-Jun-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 534/2024

casestatus.in Summary

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

Search Another Case