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

Case disposed

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

GUJARAT (BOMBAY) PROHIBITION ACT, 1949 Section 65AA

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.

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

02-04-2026
JUDEGEMENT

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, SHEHERA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case