THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs PARASBHAI GAMBHIRBHAI VASAVA Advocate - R A VASAVA — 1727/2025
Case under The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 281,. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 10th April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJNR030019452025
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
1727/2025
Filing Date
14-10-2025
Registration No
1727/2025
Registration Date
14-10-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT, SAGBARA
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
10th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
11823021250943
Police Station
SAGBARA POLICE STATION- NARMADA DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
PARASBHAI GAMBHIRBHAI VASAVA Advocate - R A VASAVA
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
FURTHER STATEMENT
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 10-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 25-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT | |
| 10-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT | |
| 03-02-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT | |
| 30-12-2025 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary The JMFC Sagbara court acquitted Parsbhai Gambhirsinh Vasava of charges under IPC Section 281 (rash/negligent driving) and Motor Vehicle Act Sections 3 and 181 (driving without license), finding the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that while the panch witnesses who prepared the seizure memo could not independently corroborate the allegations, and no independent witnesses testified to reckless driving endangering lives, the burden of proof rested entirely on the prosecution, which was not discharged. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary The JMFC Sagbara court acquitted Parsbhai Gambhirsinh Vasava of charges under IPC Section 281 (rash/negligent driving) and Motor Vehicle Act Sections 3 and 181 (driving without license), finding the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that while the panch witnesses who prepared the seizure memo could not independently corroborate the allegations, and no independent witnesses testified to reckless driving endangering lives, the burden of proof rested entirely on the prosecution, which was not discharged. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts