The State of Gujarat vs ramu dudabhai parmar Advocate - J M CHAVDA — 836/2026
Case under Gujarat (bombay) Police Act, 1951 Section 135. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 16th May 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJPB020011252026
e-Filing Number
19-02-2026
Filing Number
836/2026
Filing Date
27-02-2026
Registration No
836/2026
Registration Date
27-02-2026
Court
CIVIL COURT PORBANDAR
Judge
5-2nd ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & A.C.J.M.
Decision Date
16th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
363
Police Station
MADHAVPUR POLICE STATION - PORBANDAR DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
The State of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
ramu dudabhai parmar Advocate - J M CHAVDA
Hearing History
Judge: 5-2nd ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & A.C.J.M.
Disposed
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FURTHER STATEMENT
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 16-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 15-05-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
| 12-05-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT |
| 11-05-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
| 01-05-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: 836/2026 The court acquitted the accused, Ramu Dudhabhai Parmar, of charges under Gujarat Police Act Section 135 (carrying a weapon in public in violation of a weapons ban proclamation). The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused carried a plastic-handled knife worth ₹20 on December 24, 2025. Key weaknesses included: panchas (witnesses) who signed the seizure document retracted their testimony and denied witnessing the actual incident; no independent witnesses corroborated police claims; and only police statements supported the case without neutral corroboration. The court found reasonable doubt about the accused's arrest and recovery of the weapon, ruling that benefit of doubt must favor the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 836/2026 The court acquitted the accused, Ramu Dudhabhai Parmar, of charges under Gujarat Police Act Section 135 (carrying a weapon in public in violation of a weapons ban proclamation). The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused carried a plastic-handled knife worth ₹20 on December 24, 2025. Key weaknesses included: panchas (witnesses) who signed the seizure document retracted their testimony and denied witnessing the actual incident; no independent witnesses corroborated police claims; and only police statements supported the case without neutral corroboration. The court found reasonable doubt about the accused's arrest and recovery of the weapon, ruling that benefit of doubt must favor the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts