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
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
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
Disposed
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FURTHER STATEMENT
FURTHER STATEMENT
FURTHER STATEMENT
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 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
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.
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
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts