Manilal Sivabhai , A.S.I. vs Sankarbhai @ Prakash Anadaji Mali Advocate - M A KHOPKAR — 1160/2013
Case under Foreigners Act, 1946 Section 3(2). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 24th April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJBK040015252013
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
1160/2013
Filing Date
08-05-2013
Registration No
1160/2013
Registration Date
08-05-2013
Court
TALUKA COURT, DEESA
Judge
4-3rd ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & A.C.J.M.
Decision Date
24th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
II 3104
Police Station
DEESA SOUTH POLICE STATION - BANASKANTHA DISTRICT
Year
2013
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Manilal Sivabhai , A.S.I.
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
Sankarbhai @ Prakash Anadaji Mali Advocate - M A KHOPKAR
Hearing History
Judge: 4-3rd ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & A.C.J.M.
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 24-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 10-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT | |
| 27-01-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS | |
| 23-12-2025 | FINAL ARGUMENTS | |
| 17-11-2025 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The court acquitted the accused, Shanker Uffe Prakash Andaaji Mali, a Pakistani national, of charges under the Foreigners Act Section 3(2)(d)-(e) and Section 14, finding insufficient evidence that he violated visa conditions or remained in India beyond his authorized period. The prosecution failed to establish through credible witness testimony and proper documentation that the accused had overstayed or breached immigration requirements, and the court emphasized that conviction cannot rest solely on police evidence when statutory procedures (like panchas' statements) are not properly followed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court acquitted the accused, Shanker Uffe Prakash Andaaji Mali, a Pakistani national, of charges under the Foreigners Act Section 3(2)(d)-(e) and Section 14, finding insufficient evidence that he violated visa conditions or remained in India beyond his authorized period. The prosecution failed to establish through credible witness testimony and proper documentation that the accused had overstayed or breached immigration requirements, and the court emphasized that conviction cannot rest solely on police evidence when statutory procedures (like panchas' statements) are not properly followed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts