Government of Gujarat vs PURANSING ANOPSING VAGHELA Advocate - B K PARMAR — 177/2026
Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65-F. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 25th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJBK060002022026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
177/2026
Filing Date
21-01-2026
Registration No
177/2026
Registration Date
21-01-2026
Court
TALUKA COURT, DEODAR
Judge
4-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
Decision Date
25th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
11996003251246
Police Station
DEODAR POLICE STATION - BANASKANTHA DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
PURANSING ANOPSING VAGHELA Advocate - B K PARMAR
Hearing History
Judge: 4-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
Disposed
FURTHER STATEMENT
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 25-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 23-03-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT | |
| 10-03-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION | |
| 26-02-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION | |
| 24-02-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The court acquitted the accused (Puran Singh Anop Singh Wadhela) of charges under IPC Section 65 (Prohibition Act), finding that the prosecution failed to establish the crime beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that critical evidence—including the seizure memo, independent witness testimony, and the chain of custody of the contraband—contained significant gaps and inconsistencies that undermined the reliability of the case, necessitating acquittal in the accused's favor. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Decision Summary The court acquitted the accused (Puran Singh Anop Singh Wadhela) of charges under IPC Section 65 (Prohibition Act), finding that the prosecution failed to establish the crime beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that critical evidence—including the seizure memo, independent witness testimony, and the chain of custody of the contraband—contained significant gaps and inconsistencies that undermined the reliability of the case, necessitating acquittal in the accused's favor. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts