Govt. of Gujarat vs kanabhai krasanbhai parmar Advocate - M R RATHOD — 1163/2025

Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(a)(a). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 16th March 2026.

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJGS050016282025

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

1163/2025

Filing Date

08-12-2025

Registration No

1163/2025

Registration Date

08-12-2025

Court

TALUKA COURT, SUTRAPADA

Judge

1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

Decision Date

16th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

FIR Details

FIR Number

921

Police Station

SUTRAPADA POLICE STATION - GIR SOMNATH DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

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

Petitioner(s)

Govt. of Gujarat

Respondent(s)

kanabhai krasanbhai parmar Advocate - M R RATHOD

Hearing History

Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

16-03-2026

Disposed

09-03-2026

JUDGEMENT

12-01-2026

PROCESS TO ACCUSED

Final Orders / Judgements

16-03-2026
JUDEGEMENT

Case Summary The court acquitted the accused, Kanabhai Krishnabhai Parmar, of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65(a) for alleged illegal possession of alcohol. The judgment found that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, citing insufficient credible witness testimony (panchas were police officers rather than independent witnesses), lack of technical/FSL evidence confirming the seized material, and failure to establish a clear link between the prohibited articles and the accused. The court invoked the benefit of doubt principle and discharged the accused accordingly. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary The court acquitted the accused, Kanabhai Krishnabhai Parmar, of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65(a) for alleged illegal possession of alcohol. The judgment found that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, citing insufficient credible witness testimony (panchas were police officers rather than independent witnesses), lack of technical/FSL evidence confirming the seized material, and failure to establish a clear link between the prohibited articles and the accused. The court invoked the benefit of doubt principle and discharged the accused accordingly. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, SUTRAPADA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case