Government of Gujarat vs KALPESHBHAI KARSANBHAI PANCHAL ( LUHAR) Advocate - B L JOSHI — 1321/2025
Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65A,E,116(2). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 25th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJBK060016242025
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
1321/2025
Filing Date
26-11-2025
Registration No
1321/2025
Registration Date
26-11-2025
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
11195017250904
Police Station
DEODAR POLICE STATION - BANASKANTHA DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
KALPESHBHAI KARSANBHAI PANCHAL ( LUHAR) Advocate - B L JOSHI
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 | |
| 09-03-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION | |
| 23-02-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary The court acquitted the accused Kalpeshbhai Karshanbhai Panchal under the Prohibition Act Section 65(A), 116(2) and related provisions, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that critical evidence, such as the recovery of foreign liquor bottles and the circumstances of seizure, lacked proper corroboration from independent witnesses and scientific examination records, and the panch (witnesses) testimonies could not substantiate the alleged offense. Consequently, the accused was acquitted and released on bail with a fine of Rs. 10,000 imposed under CrPC Section 281(1). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary The court acquitted the accused Kalpeshbhai Karshanbhai Panchal under the Prohibition Act Section 65(A), 116(2) and related provisions, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that critical evidence, such as the recovery of foreign liquor bottles and the circumstances of seizure, lacked proper corroboration from independent witnesses and scientific examination records, and the panch (witnesses) testimonies could not substantiate the alleged offense. Consequently, the accused was acquitted and released on bail with a fine of Rs. 10,000 imposed under CrPC Section 281(1). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts