Govt. of Gujarat vs arajanbhai mansukhbahi parmar Advocate - V D KAMLIYA — 1211/2025

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: GJGS050016762025

Filing Number

1211/2025

Filing Date

10-Dec-2025

Registration No

1211/2025

Registration Date

10-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

985

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.arajanbhai mansukhbahi parmar Advocate - V D KAMLIYA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 03-Apr-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Court Decision Summary The Sutrapar­ada Judicial Magistrate Court acquitted defendant Arjanbhai Mansukh­bhai Parmar of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65(A), finding insufficient evidence of illegal alcohol possession. The court determined that the prosecution witnesses (panchas) failed to adequately corroborate the seizure, and lacked proper technical evidence and clear chain of custody connecting the contraband directly to the accused, warranting benefit of doubt under criminal jurisprudence principles. 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. 10-Dec-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 1211/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Court Decision Summary The Sutrapar­ada Judicial Magistrate Court acquitted defendant Arjanbhai Mansukh­bhai Parmar of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65(A), finding insufficient evidence of illegal alcohol possession. The court determined that the prosecution witnesses (panchas) failed to adequately corroborate the seizure, and lacked proper technical evidence and clear chain of custody connecting the contraband directly to the accused, warranting benefit of doubt under criminal jurisprudence principles. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case