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.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJPM050010332024

Filing Number

724/2024

Filing Date

26-Jul-2024

Registration No

724/2024

Registration Date

26-Jul-2024

Court

TALUKA COURT, SHEHERA

Judge

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

Decision Date

02-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGEMENT

Last updated 07-Jun-2026

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)

  1. 1.GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.PRAVINSINH AMARSINH PATEL Advocate - R L PARMAR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 02-Apr-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    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.

  3. 02-Apr-2026

    Disposed

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

  4. 01-Apr-2026

    Further Statement

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

  5. 13-Mar-2026

    Further Statement

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

  6. 23-Feb-2026

    Further Statement

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

  7. 07-Feb-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

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

  8. 19-Jan-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

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

  9. 20-Dec-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

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

  10. 29-Nov-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

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

  11. 18-Oct-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

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

  12. 17-Sep-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

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

  13. 08-Aug-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

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

  14. 11-Jul-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

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

  15. 06-Jun-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

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

  16. 17-May-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

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

  17. 18-Apr-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

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

  18. 21-Mar-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

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

  19. 21-Feb-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

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

  20. 27-Jan-2025

    Process To Accused

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

  21. 21-Dec-2024

    Process To Accused

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

  22. 22-Nov-2024

    Process To Accused

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

  23. 18-Oct-2024

    Process To Accused

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

  24. 23-Sep-2024

    Process To Accused

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

  25. 22-Aug-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  26. 26-Jul-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 724/2024

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.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case