Govt. of Gujarat vs devabhai mearamanbhai parmar Advocate - M R RATHOD — 1186/2025

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

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJGS050016512025

Filing Number

1186/2025

Filing Date

09-Dec-2025

Registration No

1186/2025

Registration Date

09-Dec-2025

Court

TALUKA COURT, SUTRAPADA

Judge

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

Decision Date

03-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

Last updated 23-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

904

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

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.devabhai mearamanbhai parmar Advocate - M R RATHOD

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 03-Apr-2026

    Judegement

    Summary The Sutrapar Magistrate Court acquitted defendant Devabhaji Meramnbhaji Parmar of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65(A), finding the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court determined that the prosecution's witnesses (panchas/formal witnesses) did not adequately corroborate the seizure of the alleged prohibited alcohol from the accused's possession, and noted significant procedural irregularities in the investigation, resulting in the acquittal and discharge of the accused with benefit of doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 03-Apr-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. 09-Dec-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 1186/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Sutrapar Magistrate Court acquitted defendant Devabhaji Meramnbhaji Parmar of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65(A), finding the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court determined that the prosecution's witnesses (panchas/formal witnesses) did not adequately corroborate the seizure of the alleged prohibited alcohol from the accused's possession, and noted significant procedural irregularities in the investigation, resulting in the acquittal and discharge of the accused with benefit of doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case