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

Case disposed

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

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

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

27-03-2026

Disposed

13-03-2026

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

06-03-2026

PROCESS TO ACCUSED

Final Orders / Judgements

27-03-2026
JUDEGEMENT

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, PALITANA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case