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

Case disposed

Filing Number

265/2026

Filing Date

16-02-2026

Registration No

265/2026

Registration Date

16-02-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, PALITANA

Judge

3-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM

Decision Date

17th April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

FIR Details

FIR Number

11198042251187

Police Station

PALITANA TOWN POLICE STATION - BHAVNAGAR DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

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

Petitioner(s)

State of Gujarat

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

GORDHANBHAI JINABHAI PARMAR Advocate - A B JOSHI

Hearing History

Judge: 3-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM

17-04-2026

Disposed

27-03-2026

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

13-03-2026

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

27-02-2026

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

Final Orders / Judgements

17-04-2026
JUDEGEMENT

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, PALITANA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case