Govt. of Gujarat vs dudhiben w o ajaybhai devabhai parmar Advocate - A R BARAD — 1192/2025
Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(a)(a). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 03rd April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJGS050016572025
Filing Number
1192/2025
Filing Date
09-Dec-2025
Registration No
1192/2025
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
882
Police Station
SUTRAPADA POLICE STATION - GIR SOMNATH DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Govt. of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.dudhiben w o ajaybhai devabhai parmar Advocate - A R BARAD
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
03-Apr-2026
JudegementView PDF
Summary The Sutrapur First Class Magistrate Court acquitted the accused, Dudhiben (wife of Ajaybhai Devabhai Parmar), under the Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65(A) due to insufficient evidence. The court found that while prohibited alcohol was allegedly seized from the accused's possession on October 18, 2025, the prosecution failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt, particularly because the panchas (witnesses) did not reliably corroborate the seizure, proper investigation procedures were questionable, and technical/forensic evidence was absent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
03-Apr-2026
Disposed
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
09-Mar-2026
Judgement
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
12-Jan-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
09-Dec-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 1192/2025
Summary The Sutrapur First Class Magistrate Court acquitted the accused, Dudhiben (wife of Ajaybhai Devabhai Parmar), under the Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 65(A) due to insufficient evidence. The court found that while prohibited alcohol was allegedly seized from the accused's possession on October 18, 2025, the prosecution failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt, particularly because the panchas (witnesses) did not reliably corroborate the seizure, proper investigation procedures were questionable, and technical/forensic evidence was absent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts