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.

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJGS050016512025

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

1186/2025

Filing Date

09-12-2025

Registration No

1186/2025

Registration Date

09-12-2025

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

904

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

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

devabhai mearamanbhai parmar Advocate - M R RATHOD

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

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.

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.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, SUTRAPADA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case