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
Filing Number
199/2026
Filing Date
09-Feb-2026
Registration No
199/2026
Registration Date
09-Feb-2026
Court
TALUKA COURT, THARAD
Judge
3-Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
24-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
Last updated 06-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
119960006251282
Police Station
THARAD POLICE STATION - BANASKANTHA DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.SHENDHABHAI NANJIBHAI PARMAR (LUHAR) Advocate - M K CHAUHAN
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
24-Apr-2026
JudegementView PDF
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.
-
24-Apr-2026
Disposed
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
24-Mar-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
10-Mar-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
03-Mar-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
09-Feb-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
09-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 199/2026
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.
Explore other courts