GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT vs PRAVINSINH AMARSINH PATEL Advocate - R L PARMAR — 724/2024
Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA. Disposed: Contested--JUDGEMENT on 02nd April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJPM050010332024
Filing Number
724/2024
Filing Date
26-07-2024
Registration No
724/2024
Registration Date
26-07-2024
Court
TALUKA COURT, SHEHERA
Judge
1-ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & A.C.J.M.
Decision Date
02nd April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGEMENT
FIR Details
FIR Number
1045
Police Station
SHAHERA POLICE STATION - PANCHMAHALS DISTRICT
Year
2023
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
PRAVINSINH AMARSINH PATEL Advocate - R L PARMAR
Hearing History
Judge: 1-ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & A.C.J.M.
Disposed
FURTHER STATEMENT
FURTHER STATEMENT
FURTHER STATEMENT
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 02-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 01-04-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT |
| 13-03-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT |
| 23-02-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT |
| 07-02-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: CC No. 724/2024 Court Decision: The accused, Pravinsinh Amarsinh Patel, was acquitted of charges under Section 65AA of the Gujarat Prohibition Act. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case against him for illegal possession of Indian-made foreign liquor (IMFL). Key Reasoning: The court determined that critical evidentiary gaps undermined the prosecution's case: the panch (village) witnesses turned hostile and denied that any liquor was seized in their presence; no documentary evidence of ownership of the raid location was produced; and no forensic report confirmed the seized liquid was IMFL. Without sufficient evidence establishing the accused's possession of prohibited liquor, conviction could not be secured. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: CC No. 724/2024 Court Decision: The accused, Pravinsinh Amarsinh Patel, was acquitted of charges under Section 65AA of the Gujarat Prohibition Act. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case against him for illegal possession of Indian-made foreign liquor (IMFL). Key Reasoning: The court determined that critical evidentiary gaps undermined the prosecution's case: the panch (village) witnesses turned hostile and denied that any liquor was seized in their presence; no documentary evidence of ownership of the raid location was produced; and no forensic report confirmed the seized liquid was IMFL. Without sufficient evidence establishing the accused's possession of prohibited liquor, conviction could not be secured. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts