State of Gujarat vs SURESHBHAI NAGJIBHAI PARMAR Advocate - A B JOSHI — 1755/2025

Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65,B,C,D,E,F. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 17th April 2026.

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJBN070031362025

Case disposed

Filing Number

1755/2025

Filing Date

11-11-2025

Registration No

1755/2025

Registration Date

11-11-2025

Court

TALUKA COURT, PALITANA

Judge

3-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM

Decision Date

17th April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

FIR Details

FIR Number

11198042250920

Police Station

PALITANA TOWN POLICE STATION - BHAVNAGAR DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

GUJARAT (BOMBAY) PROHIBITION ACT, 1949 Section 65,B,C,D,E,F

Petitioner(s)

State of Gujarat

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

SURESHBHAI NAGJIBHAI PARMAR Advocate - A B JOSHI

Hearing History

Judge: 3-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM

17-04-2026

Disposed

27-03-2026

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

13-03-2026

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

27-02-2026

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

20-02-2026

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

Final Orders / Judgements

17-04-2026
JUDEGEMENT

Case Summary: State of Gujarat v. Sureshbhai Nagjibhai Parmar The court acquitted the accused Sureshbhai Nagjibhai Parmar of charges under the Bombay Prohibition Act 1949, Section 65(B,C,D,E,F). The court found that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, particularly because the panchnama (seizure record) was not adequately supported by independent witness testimony and no FSL report confirmed the seized materials were illicit alcohol. Applying established judicial principles, the court held that when critical evidence like the panchnama remains unproven and independent witnesses are unavailable, the accused deserves the benefit of doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: State of Gujarat v. Sureshbhai Nagjibhai Parmar The court acquitted the accused Sureshbhai Nagjibhai Parmar of charges under the Bombay Prohibition Act 1949, Section 65(B,C,D,E,F). The court found that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, particularly because the panchnama (seizure record) was not adequately supported by independent witness testimony and no FSL report confirmed the seized materials were illicit alcohol. Applying established judicial principles, the court held that when critical evidence like the panchnama remains unproven and independent witnesses are unavailable, the accused deserves the benefit of doubt. 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