THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs KIRANBHAI BABUBHAI PARMAR Advocate - N K BHARVAD — 25/2026
Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(A),(A). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 21st April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJAR060000312026
Filing Number
25/2026
Filing Date
05-01-2026
Registration No
25/2026
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
50604
Police Station
DHANSURA POLICE STATION – ARVALLI @ MODASA DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
KIRANBHAI BABUBHAI PARMAR Advocate - N K 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: State of Gujarat v. Kiranbhai Babubhai Parmar The court acquitted the respondent of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65(a), finding that the prosecution failed to establish its case due to lack of proper witness corroboration and procedural defects in the liquor seizure. The five panchas (independent witnesses) who were present during the search did not support the prosecution's version, and critical procedures—including proper sample collection and forensic analysis—were not followed as per the 2012 Rules, rendering the evidence insufficient for conviction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: State of Gujarat v. Kiranbhai Babubhai Parmar The court acquitted the respondent of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65(a), finding that the prosecution failed to establish its case due to lack of proper witness corroboration and procedural defects in the liquor seizure. The five panchas (independent witnesses) who were present during the search did not support the prosecution's version, and critical procedures—including proper sample collection and forensic analysis—were not followed as per the 2012 Rules, rendering the evidence insufficient for conviction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts