Government of Gujarat vs SHENDHABHAI NANJIBHAI PARMAR (LUHAR) Advocate - M K CHAUHAN — 199/2026

Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65F,. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 24th April 2026.

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJBK080002932026

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

199/2026

Filing Date

09-02-2026

Registration No

199/2026

Registration Date

09-02-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, THARAD

Judge

3-ADDI CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

Decision Date

24th April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

FIR Details

FIR Number

119960006251282

Police Station

THARAD POLICE STATION - BANASKANTHA DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

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

Petitioner(s)

Government of Gujarat

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

SHENDHABHAI NANJIBHAI PARMAR (LUHAR) Advocate - M K CHAUHAN

Hearing History

Judge: 3-ADDI CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

24-04-2026

Disposed

24-03-2026

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

10-03-2026

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

03-03-2026

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

09-02-2026

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

Final Orders / Judgements

24-04-2026
JUDEGEMENT

Summary: The court acquitted the accused Sendhabhаi Nanјibhаi Parmаr of charges under the Prohibition Act Section 65(F) for alleged possession of illicit liquor. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, noting critical deficiencies including: the panch (witness) names were not recorded in the FIR, independent witnesses were not examined, the seizure memo lacked proper corroboration, and police witnesses demonstrated hostility toward the panchs' testimony. The court held that exclusive conscious possession of the contraband material could not be established, and the prosecution bore the burden to prove the case conclusively—a burden it failed to discharge. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The court acquitted the accused Sendhabhаi Nanјibhаi Parmаr of charges under the Prohibition Act Section 65(F) for alleged possession of illicit liquor. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, noting critical deficiencies including: the panch (witness) names were not recorded in the FIR, independent witnesses were not examined, the seizure memo lacked proper corroboration, and police witnesses demonstrated hostility toward the panchs' testimony. The court held that exclusive conscious possession of the contraband material could not be established, and the prosecution bore the burden to prove the case conclusively—a burden it failed to discharge. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, THARAD All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case