State of Gujarat vs MADHUBEN RAMESHBHAI DEVJIBHAI PARMAR Advocate - A B JOSHI — 291/2026
Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(A)(A). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 17th April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJBN070005352026
Filing Number
291/2026
Filing Date
17-Feb-2026
Registration No
291/2026
Registration Date
17-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
11198042251220
Police Station
PALITANA TOWN POLICE STATION - BHAVNAGAR DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.State of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.MADHUBEN RAMESHBHAI DEVJIBHAI PARMAR Advocate - A B JOSHI
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
17-Apr-2026
JudegementView PDF
Case Summary: C.C.NO.291-2026 The court acquitted Madhuben Rameshbhai Devjibhai Parmar of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949, Section 65(A). The prosecution failed to prove that prohibited liquor was recovered from the accused, as no FSL (Forensic Science Laboratory) report confirmed the nature of seized materials, and the panchnama (seizure document) lacked corroboration from independent witnesses. The court found contradictions in witness testimony and applied the principle that when a panchnama itself remains unproven, other prosecution evidence cannot support conviction. 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
-
06-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
17-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 291/2026
Case Summary: C.C.NO.291-2026 The court acquitted Madhuben Rameshbhai Devjibhai Parmar of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949, Section 65(A). The prosecution failed to prove that prohibited liquor was recovered from the accused, as no FSL (Forensic Science Laboratory) report confirmed the nature of seized materials, and the panchnama (seizure document) lacked corroboration from independent witnesses. The court found contradictions in witness testimony and applied the principle that when a panchnama itself remains unproven, other prosecution evidence cannot support conviction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts