THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs KALIBEN BABUBHAI PARMAR Advocate - V I BHARVAD — 22/2026
Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(A)(A). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 21st April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJAR060000282026
Filing Number
22/2026
Filing Date
05-01-2026
Registration No
22/2026
Registration Date
05-01-2026
Court
TALUKA COURT, DHANSURA
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
21st April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
50694
Police Station
DHANSURA POLICE STATION – ARVALLI @ MODASA DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
KALIBEN BABUBHAI PARMAR Advocate - V I BHARVAD
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 21-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 03-04-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 13-03-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
| 21-02-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
| 07-02-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: The State of Gujarat v. Kaliben Babubhai Parmar The court acquitted the respondent of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act. The prosecution failed to establish a credible case due to critical procedural defects: the panch (witness) testimonies did not corroborate the police officer's account of the alleged liquor seizure, no proper forensic sample analysis was conducted per regulations, and the investigation lacked independent verification. The court found the prosecution's evidence insufficient and unreliable, ruling that conviction cannot rest solely on uncorroborated police testimony when mandatory witness procedures are involved. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: The State of Gujarat v. Kaliben Babubhai Parmar The court acquitted the respondent of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act. The prosecution failed to establish a credible case due to critical procedural defects: the panch (witness) testimonies did not corroborate the police officer's account of the alleged liquor seizure, no proper forensic sample analysis was conducted per regulations, and the investigation lacked independent verification. The court found the prosecution's evidence insufficient and unreliable, ruling that conviction cannot rest solely on uncorroborated police testimony when mandatory witness procedures are involved. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts