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.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJGS050016282025

Filing Number

1163/2025

Filing Date

08-Dec-2025

Registration No

1163/2025

Registration Date

08-Dec-2025

Court

TALUKA COURT, SUTRAPADA

Judge

1-Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

Decision Date

16-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

Last updated 23-Apr-2026

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)

  1. 1.Govt. of Gujarat

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.kanabhai krasanbhai parmar Advocate - M R RATHOD

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 16-Mar-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    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.

  3. 16-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  4. 09-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  5. 12-Jan-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 08-Dec-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 1163/2025

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.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case