State of Gujarat vs GORDHANBHAI JINABHAI PARMAR Advocate - A B JOSHI — 265/2026
Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(A)(A). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 17th April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJBN070005082026
Filing Number
265/2026
Filing Date
16-Feb-2026
Registration No
265/2026
Registration Date
16-Feb-2026
Court
TALUKA COURT, PALITANA
Judge
3-Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
Decision Date
17-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
Last updated 31-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
11198042251187
Police Station
PALITANA TOWN POLICE STATION - BHAVNAGAR DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.State of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.GORDHANBHAI JINABHAI PARMAR Advocate - A B JOSHI
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
17-Apr-2026
JudegementView PDF
Case Summary: C.C.NO.265-2026 The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted advocate Gordhanbhai Jinabhai Parmar of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act 1949, Section 65(a), finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that the panchnama (seizure document) was not properly corroborated by independent witnesses, the seized material lacked FSL (Forensic Science Laboratory) verification, and critical evidentiary gaps undermined the complainant's credibility, warranting acquittal under CrPC Section 271(1). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
17-Apr-2026
Disposed
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
27-Mar-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
13-Mar-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
27-Feb-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
16-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 265/2026
Case Summary: C.C.NO.265-2026 The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted advocate Gordhanbhai Jinabhai Parmar of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act 1949, Section 65(a), finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that the panchnama (seizure document) was not properly corroborated by independent witnesses, the seized material lacked FSL (Forensic Science Laboratory) verification, and critical evidentiary gaps undermined the complainant's credibility, warranting acquittal under CrPC Section 271(1). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts