Government of Gujarat vs LALABHAI KODARBHAI RATHOD Advocate - D H VANKAR — 1095/2023

Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA,116B,98(2),81. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 09th April 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJKH050014902023

Filing Number

1095/2023

Filing Date

10-Aug-2023

Registration No

1095/2023

Registration Date

10-Aug-2023

Court

TALUKA COURT, KAPADVANJ

Judge

5-Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

Decision Date

09-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

Last updated 16-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11204028230282

Police Station

KAPADWANJ RURAL POLICE STATION - KHEDA DISTRICT

Year

2023

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA,116B,98(2),81

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.LALABHAI KODARBHAI RATHOD Advocate - D H VANKAR

  2. 2.VIKRAMBHAI MOHANBHAI PARMAR

  3. 3.SHANABHAI NANABHAI PARMAR

    Adv. V J SOLANKI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 09-Apr-2026

    Judegement

    Case Summary: CC 1095/2023 Court Decision: The court acquitted all three defendants (Lalabhai Kodarbhai Rathod, Vikrambhai Mohanbhai Parmar, and Shanabhai Nanabhai Parmar) of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act. The prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, as witnesses contradicted key evidence and the origin/authenticity of seized liquor bottles could not be established. Key Reasoning: The court found insufficient evidence that the seized alcohol was genuinely branded bottles and that the contraband was in the defendants' possession. Panchs (witnesses) did not support the prosecution's narrative, and critical procedural gaps existed in the investigation regarding verification of the bottles' authenticity with the manufacturer. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 09-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  4. 06-Apr-2026

    Judgement

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  5. 24-Mar-2026

    Further Statement

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  6. 17-Mar-2026

    Further Statement

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  7. 24-Feb-2026

    Further Statement

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  8. 09-Feb-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  9. 29-Dec-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  10. 02-Dec-2025

    Process To Accused

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  11. 17-Nov-2025

    Process To Accused

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  12. 28-Oct-2025

    Process To Accused

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  13. 23-Sep-2025

    Process To Accused

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  14. 06-Aug-2025

    Process To Accused

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  15. 23-Jun-2025

    Process To Accused

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  16. 24-Mar-2025

    Process To Accused

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  17. 27-Dec-2024

    Process To Accused

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  18. 30-Nov-2024

    Process To Accused

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  19. 03-Sep-2024

    Process To Accused

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  20. 07-Jun-2024

    Process To Accused

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  21. 07-Mar-2024

    Process To Accused

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  22. 08-Dec-2023

    Process To Accused

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  23. 06-Nov-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  24. 10-Aug-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. 1095/2023

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CC 1095/2023 Court Decision: The court acquitted all three defendants (Lalabhai Kodarbhai Rathod, Vikrambhai Mohanbhai Parmar, and Shanabhai Nanabhai Parmar) of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act. The prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, as witnesses contradicted key evidence and the origin/authenticity of seized liquor bottles could not be established. Key Reasoning: The court found insufficient evidence that the seized alcohol was genuinely branded bottles and that the contraband was in the defendants' possession. Panchs (witnesses) did not support the prosecution's narrative, and critical procedural gaps existed in the investigation regarding verification of the bottles' authenticity with the manufacturer. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case