THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs PARAKRAMSINH VIKRAMSINH JADEJA Advocate - R A SOJITRA — 469/2025
Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 11th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJRJ080005812025
Filing Number
469/2025
Filing Date
19-11-2025
Registration No
469/2025
Registration Date
19-11-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT, JAMKANDORNA
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
11th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
11213020250437
Police Station
JAMKANDORANA POLICE STATION - RAJKOT DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
PARAKRAMSINH VIKRAMSINH JADEJA Advocate - R A SOJITRA
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
FURTHER STATEMENT
FURTHER STATEMENT
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 11-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 09-03-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT |
| 27-02-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT |
| 04-02-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
| 13-01-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The court acquitted the accused of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65(A)(A), finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted critical procedural defects: the panchas (witnesses) did not support the prosecution, recovery of contraband lacked proper documentation, and independent witnesses were absent during the seizure. Consequently, the entire investigation procedure was deemed tainted, and no conviction could be legally sustained. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court acquitted the accused of charges under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, Section 65(A)(A), finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted critical procedural defects: the panchas (witnesses) did not support the prosecution, recovery of contraband lacked proper documentation, and independent witnesses were absent during the seizure. Consequently, the entire investigation procedure was deemed tainted, and no conviction could be legally sustained. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts