Government of Gujarat vs HITESHKUMAR BABULAL PRAJAPATI Advocate - A N PARMAR — 1725/2025
Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(a)(a),116(B),81,. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 03rd April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJBK030020172025
e-Filing Number
18-12-2025
Filing Number
1725/2025
Filing Date
20-12-2025
Registration No
1725/2025
Registration Date
20-12-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT, VADGAM
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
03rd April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
11195009250492
Police Station
CHHAPI POLICE STATION - BANASKANTHA DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
HITESHKUMAR BABULAL PRAJAPATI Advocate - A N PARMAR
HITESHKUMAR SHAMJIBHAI JAGANIYA
Adv. A N PARMAR
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
PROCESS TO ACCUSED
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 03-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 10-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT | |
| 24-02-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION | |
| 05-02-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION | |
| 06-01-2026 | PROCESS TO ACCUSED |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The court acquitted the two accused under the Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65(a), finding that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendants were in conscious possession of foreign liquor bottles. The judgment emphasized that independent panch (witness) testimony did not corroborate the prosecution's case, procedural irregularities tainted the investigation, and relying solely on police witnesses' evidence without independent corroboration was insufficient to establish guilt in prohibition cases. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court acquitted the two accused under the Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65(a), finding that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendants were in conscious possession of foreign liquor bottles. The judgment emphasized that independent panch (witness) testimony did not corroborate the prosecution's case, procedural irregularities tainted the investigation, and relying solely on police witnesses' evidence without independent corroboration was insufficient to establish guilt in prohibition cases. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts