State of Gujarat vs KACHUBEN LAKHUBHAI PARMAR Advocate - A B JOSHI — 298/2026
Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(A)(A). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 27th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJBN070005422026
Filing Number
298/2026
Filing Date
17-02-2026
Registration No
298/2026
Registration Date
17-02-2026
Court
TALUKA COURT, PALITANA
Judge
3-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
Decision Date
27th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
11198042251263
Police Station
PALITANA TOWN POLICE STATION - BHAVNAGAR DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
KACHUBEN LAKHUBHAI PARMAR Advocate - A B JOSHI
Hearing History
Judge: 3-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
Disposed
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 27-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 13-03-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
| 06-03-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
Final Orders / Judgements
The court acquitted accused Kachuben Lakhubhai 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 noted critical evidentiary gaps: the panchnama (seizure document) was not adequately corroborated by independent witnesses, the seized material lacked FSL (forensic) confirmation, and the witness testimonies contained inconsistencies and contradictions, warranting benefit of doubt to the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The court acquitted accused Kachuben Lakhubhai 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 noted critical evidentiary gaps: the panchnama (seizure document) was not adequately corroborated by independent witnesses, the seized material lacked FSL (forensic) confirmation, and the witness testimonies contained inconsistencies and contradictions, warranting benefit of doubt to the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts