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

Case disposed

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

GUJARAT (BOMBAY) PROHIBITION ACT, 1949 Section 65-F

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

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

25-03-2026
JUDEGEMENT

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, DEODAR All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case