Government of Gujarat vs DILIPBHAI DHARAMSIBHAI PARMAR Advocate - N H LALANI — 740/2025

Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 01st April 2026.

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJJM040009762025

Case disposed

Filing Number

740/2025

Filing Date

04-07-2025

Registration No

740/2025

Registration Date

04-07-2025

Court

TALUKA COURT, JAMJODHPUR

Judge

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

Decision Date

01st April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

FIR Details

FIR Number

11202026250270

Police Station

JAMJODHPUR POLICE STATION - JAMNAGAR DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

GUJARAT (BOMBAY) PROHIBITION ACT, 1949 Section 65AA

Petitioner(s)

Government of Gujarat

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

DILIPBHAI DHARAMSIBHAI PARMAR Advocate - N H LALANI

Hearing History

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

01-04-2026

Disposed

16-03-2026

FINAL ARGUMENTS

24-02-2026

FURTHER STATEMENT

16-02-2026

FURTHER STATEMENT

05-01-2026

FURTHER STATEMENT

Final Orders / Judgements

01-04-2026
JUDEGEMENT

The court acquitted defendant Dilipbhai Dharamsibhai Parmar of charges under the Prohibition Act Section 65(A)(A), finding the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court determined that while police witnesses testified to recovering illicit liquor from the accused's premises, independent corroborating evidence—particularly from the panchas (neutral witnesses) who were supposedly present during the raid—was insufficient to establish guilt with certainty. The court emphasized that without credible independent verification and proper documentary evidence (including FSL reports), the allegations remained unsubstantiated. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The court acquitted defendant Dilipbhai Dharamsibhai Parmar of charges under the Prohibition Act Section 65(A)(A), finding the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court determined that while police witnesses testified to recovering illicit liquor from the accused's premises, independent corroborating evidence—particularly from the panchas (neutral witnesses) who were supposedly present during the raid—was insufficient to establish guilt with certainty. The court emphasized that without credible independent verification and proper documentary evidence (including FSL reports), the allegations remained unsubstantiated. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, JAMJODHPUR All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case