Govt. of Gujarat vs bhavanaben w manasingbhai ebhabhai paramar Advocate - K J VADHER — 1178/2025

Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(a)(a). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 03rd April 2026.

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJGS050016432025

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

1178/2025

Filing Date

08-12-2025

Registration No

1178/2025

Registration Date

08-12-2025

Court

TALUKA COURT, SUTRAPADA

Judge

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

Decision Date

03rd April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

FIR Details

FIR Number

938

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)

bhavanaben w manasingbhai ebhabhai paramar Advocate - K J VADHER

Hearing History

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

03-04-2026

Disposed

09-03-2026

JUDGEMENT

12-01-2026

PROCESS TO ACCUSED

Final Orders / Judgements

03-04-2026
JUDEGEMENT

Court Decision Summary The Sutrapad First Class Judicial Magistrate's Court acquitted the accused, Bhavnaben (wife of Mansinhbhai Parmaar), of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65(A) for allegedly possessing unauthorized alcohol. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to insufficient witness corroboration, lack of technical expert evidence (FSL), absence of proper seizure documentation, and questionable investigation procedures that appeared procedurally tainted. Applying the principle of benefit of doubt, the accused was declared not guilty and released. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Court Decision Summary The Sutrapad First Class Judicial Magistrate's Court acquitted the accused, Bhavnaben (wife of Mansinhbhai Parmaar), of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65(A) for allegedly possessing unauthorized alcohol. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to insufficient witness corroboration, lack of technical expert evidence (FSL), absence of proper seizure documentation, and questionable investigation procedures that appeared procedurally tainted. Applying the principle of benefit of doubt, the accused was declared not guilty and released. 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