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.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJBN070005422026

Filing Number

298/2026

Filing Date

17-Feb-2026

Registration No

298/2026

Registration Date

17-Feb-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, PALITANA

Judge

3-Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

Decision Date

27-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

Last updated 31-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11198042251263

Police Station

PALITANA TOWN POLICE STATION - BHAVNAGAR DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(A)(A)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.KACHUBEN LAKHUBHAI PARMAR Advocate - A B JOSHI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 27-Mar-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    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.

  3. 27-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  4. 13-Mar-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  5. 06-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 17-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 298/2026

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case