THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs AMITBHAI MIRKHANBHAI GAMAR Advocate - R A PARMAR — 8/2026
Case under Gujarat (bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65 AA. Disposed: Contested--JUDGEMENT on 01st April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJSK190000102026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
8/2026
Filing Date
08-01-2026
Registration No
8/2026
Registration Date
08-01-2026
Court
TALUKA COURT, POSHINA
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
01st April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGEMENT
FIR Details
FIR Number
528
Police Station
Kheroj Police Station, Poshina
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
AMITBHAI MIRKHANBHAI GAMAR Advocate - R A PARMAR
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
FURTHER STATEMENT
FURTHER STATEMENT
FURTHER STATEMENT
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 01-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 24-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT | |
| 07-03-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT | |
| 02-03-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT | |
| 19-02-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Poshina (Sabarkantha district) acquitted the accused Amitbhai Mirkhanbhai Gamaar of charges under the Prohibition Act Section 65(A) on April 1, 2026. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, particularly because the key witnesses (panchas) who conducted the seizure proceedings did not corroborate the seizure details, and the complainant could not establish the accused's exclusive and conscious possession of the seized alcohol bottle. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Decision Summary The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Poshina (Sabarkantha district) acquitted the accused Amitbhai Mirkhanbhai Gamaar of charges under the Prohibition Act Section 65(A) on April 1, 2026. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, particularly because the key witnesses (panchas) who conducted the seizure proceedings did not corroborate the seizure details, and the complainant could not establish the accused's exclusive and conscious possession of the seized alcohol bottle. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts