THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs SURESHBHAI NARSHIBHAI PARMAR Advocate - R A SOJITRA — 521/2025
Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AA. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 23rd March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJRJ080006612025
Filing Number
521/2025
Filing Date
16-Dec-2025
Registration No
521/2025
Registration Date
16-Dec-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT, JAMKANDORNA
Judge
1-Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
23-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
Last updated 16-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
11213020250471
Police Station
JAMKANDORANA POLICE STATION - RAJKOT DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.SURESHBHAI NARSHIBHAI PARMAR Advocate - R A SOJITRA
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
23-Mar-2026
JudegementView PDF
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 defects in the investigation procedure, lack of independent witnesses' support, absence of required permits for holding seized alcohol, and insufficient corroborating evidence, rendering the entire investigation tainted and unreliable for conviction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
23-Mar-2026
Disposed
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
11-Mar-2026
Further Statement
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
27-Feb-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
13-Feb-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
29-Jan-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
06-Jan-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
16-Dec-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
16-Dec-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 521/2025
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 defects in the investigation procedure, lack of independent witnesses' support, absence of required permits for holding seized alcohol, and insufficient corroborating evidence, rendering the entire investigation tainted and unreliable for conviction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts