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
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
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
Disposed
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 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
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.
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
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts