Government of Gujarat vs SHANKARLAL RAMARAM BISNOI Advocate - V.J.PAREGI — 770/2021
Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AE,98(2),116(2),81. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 12th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJBK080008852021
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
770/2021
Filing Date
08-07-2021
Registration No
770/2021
Registration Date
08-07-2021
Court
TALUKA COURT, THARAD
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
Decision Date
12th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
11195050200841
Police Station
THARAD POLICE STATION - BANASKANTHA DISTRICT
Year
2020
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
SHANKARLAL RAMARAM BISNOI Advocate - V.J.PAREGI
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
PROCESS TO ACCUSED
PROCESS TO ACCUSED
PROCESS TO ACCUSED
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 12-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 09-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT | |
| 03-03-2026 | PROCESS TO ACCUSED | |
| 27-02-2026 | PROCESS TO ACCUSED | |
| 10-02-2026 | PROCESS TO ACCUSED |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Judgment Summary The Thrad Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court acquitted Shankarla Ramaram Vishnoi of charges under the Prohibition Act and IPC sections for alleged liquor smuggling, finding that the prosecution failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt. The court determined that key witnesses (the panch/neutral parties present during recovery) did not support the prosecution's narrative, independent corroboration was lacking, and FSL examination reports were absent, rendering the evidence insufficient to prove the allegations. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Judgment Summary The Thrad Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court acquitted Shankarla Ramaram Vishnoi of charges under the Prohibition Act and IPC sections for alleged liquor smuggling, finding that the prosecution failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt. The court determined that key witnesses (the panch/neutral parties present during recovery) did not support the prosecution's narrative, independent corroboration was lacking, and FSL examination reports were absent, rendering the evidence insufficient to prove the allegations. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts