State of Gujarat vs ASUBEN ODHABHAI BIJALBHAI PARMAR Advocate - A B JOSHI — 349/2026
Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(A)(A). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 27th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJBN070006092026
Filing Number
349/2026
Filing Date
24-02-2026
Registration No
349/2026
Registration Date
24-02-2026
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
11198042260050
Police Station
PALITANA TOWN POLICE STATION - BHAVNAGAR DISTRICT
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
ASUBEN ODHABHAI BIJALBHAI PARMAR Advocate - A B JOSHI
Hearing History
Judge: 3-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
Disposed
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
PROCESS TO ACCUSED
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 27-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 13-03-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
| 06-03-2026 | PROCESS TO ACCUSED |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: C.C. No. 349/2026 The court acquitted defendant Asuben Odhabhai Bijalbhai Parmar of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act 1949, Section 65(A). The court found that the prosecution failed to adequately prove that prohibited liquor was recovered from the defendant's possession without proper permit. Key evidentiary gaps included: panchnama (seizure document) not properly corroborated by independent witnesses, no FSL (forensic) report confirming the seized material was alcohol, and witness testimony contradicting the prosecution's case. Applying established precedent, the court granted the defendant benefit of doubt due to insufficient and unreliable evidence, and ordered his release with bail conditions continued. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: C.C. No. 349/2026 The court acquitted defendant Asuben Odhabhai Bijalbhai Parmar of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act 1949, Section 65(A). The court found that the prosecution failed to adequately prove that prohibited liquor was recovered from the defendant's possession without proper permit. Key evidentiary gaps included: panchnama (seizure document) not properly corroborated by independent witnesses, no FSL (forensic) report confirming the seized material was alcohol, and witness testimony contradicting the prosecution's case. Applying established precedent, the court granted the defendant benefit of doubt due to insufficient and unreliable evidence, and ordered his release with bail conditions continued. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts